Posted on 01/22/2015 2:41:41 PM PST by big bad easter bunny
Talk about "begging the question". (Look that one up CpnKook) Yeah, he's a regular fallacy machine.
He has no comprehension of the term, ‘logical fallacy,’ and it doesn’t appear that anyone can explain it to him.
Absolutely. He seems to think he can make up in shrillness what he lacks in perspicacity. :)
If he was bothered by logical paradoxes, he would have gone into a shock trying to explain those 100,000 children of British Loyalists born in the United States after July 4, 1776.
Fortunately for him, the liberal brain has circuit breakers that can pop and allow him to wake up in fantasy land.
Are they arguing about precedents or original intent?
‘Fortunately for him, the liberal brain has circuit breakers that can pop and allow him to wake up in fantasy land.’
Absolutely. He is not the only uber-liberal I’ve argued with. I’ve had extended discussions with a wide spectrum of them. Their circuit breakers kick in whenever they encounter a fact or piece of evidence that contradicts their pet argument. They blow past it like it wasn’t there. Heaven help you, though, if you suggest they didn’t read it in the first place. They go into a full-blown tantrum then, let me assure you.’
My take is that in every case they actually did read it. But their brain shuts down when it encounters info it doesn’t like, and so fifteen seconds after reading it they have no memory of it. At least that’s my best understanding of the situation, fwiw.
Since you seem to be urging us to let the courts decide for us what is the truth, I suppose you will be coming out in favor of "Gay Marriage" any day now?
It is an odd conservative indeed who preaches the infallibility of the courts.
The courts are simply wrong, on this issue as well as a host of other issues. The modern courts base their positions on the precedent of the Wong Kim Ark decision's interpretation of the 14th amendment, which was itself a deliberate rejection of the stated intent of the primary author of the 14th amendment, John Bingham.
Bingham explicitly stated in the debates on the 14th amendment that it was never intended to apply to the children of transient aliens. He said this not once, but twice.
The court simply ignored the intent of Congress. It has been a "Precedent" ever since.
Remember this?
Kinda blows a big hole in their "Born on the Soil English Law" shtick, doesn't it? :)
Yeah, in England the children born of Foreigners had special taxes put on them, and couldn't inherit any property, weren't allowed to perform certain jobs, and were basically second class citizens.
Blackstone himself did. despite the 'born in England' canard, what Blackstone said was natural born meant they were born in the Allegiance of the King.
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.
One can be born within the 'dominion of the crown' but still not be within the Allegiance of the King. That's like saying every child born there of a visitor was automatically a subject of the crown whether they wanted to be or not.
---
Yes, this conversation has made me think of Jeff Winston. I actually had BAYARD, BAYARD, BAYARD running though my head as I was typing earlier. LOL!
I have actually researched a bit into British Law, and how it was they came to assert this idea that anyone born in England was automatically a British Subject.
As near as I have been able to tell it tracks back to James I and Calvin's Case.
There appears to be pretty good evidence that they dreamed the whole thing up to solve what had become a serious political problem. Had they decided the case the other way, Scotland would have split from the United Kingdom, and so the King very much needed Calvin's case to be ruled the way it was.
Even so, it took 14 judges over a year to decide that someone born in England was a "natural born subject" and they still had two dissenting judges.
I dare say they simply gave the King the ruling he absolutely had to have.
Eligibility is a legal discussion, not a moral/philosophical one. For a legal matter, yes... The courts decide. They also decide the legality of gay marriage. My views on the morality are mine to differ (at least for now). I’m also free to support political action to the further my causes and beliefs.
You fail to make a distinction between IS Ted Cruz eligible and the arm chair quarterback topics of IF he should be and IF the founding fathers, the queens horses and queens men would have been agreed.
You are free to belly ache about shoulda coulda woulda, and ponder if “ifs” and “buts” could be canned like nuts. But that is your burden to bear, not mine.
The legal matter is settled, and there are far far more pressing constitutional issues to deal with in my opinion. You are free to communicate to make your case. So far, you have insulted your audience, demonstrated an inability to stay on topic, and came off like a loonie. I don’t suspect you will get far with that approach. So far, nothing you have posted here is even close to enough to change my opinion.
Just thought you should know. :-)
‘So far, you have insulted your audience, demonstrated an inability to stay on topic, and came[sic] off like a loonie. I don’t suspect you will get far with that approach.’
Speak for yourself. Others, you may find, are singularly unimpressed with moral/intellectual arbiters who notice the supposed insults and other shortcomings of the party they disagree with, while turning a blind eye to equal or far worse offenses committed by the party they support. Such people make sorry ‘judges,’ though they routinely set themselves up in such roles. And while I realize that liberals love unfair, biased, name-calling judges, conservatives typically expect better.
Back in August, 2013, you made the usual Birther claim that Wong Kim Ark was just about the 14th amendment ("You Also completely ignore that the court Invokes the 14th amendment as the governing law"), a variant of your earlier claim "[WKA] never uses the term 'natural born citizen." To that I gave you a detailed lesson showing how Horace Gray analyzed "natural born citizen" and "born . . . in the United State, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to mean the same thing..
Your reply? One syllable: "Meh." Yeah, you knew you'd just been set straight.
You are first a liar
A baseless charge, given I document every significant legal and historical point I make. But try to substantiate your charge: show the statement I made that was a knowing inaccuracy. Like I said, we both know you can posture, but you can't deliver. This has "DiogenesLamp Fail" written all over it already.
You need to learn what a fallacy
I know. And showing a consensus of authorities writing on the topic of their expertise isn't one of them. You manage even to get wrong the argumentative crutch you have to keep using to run away from your substantive fails. Quite amazing.
And speaking of logical fallacies, try looking up ad hominem. That's another frequent one in your arsenal.
You really need to go find some children to argue with
I need not seek when right in front of me here I've got an immature, petulant child calling me all sorts of names. "BWWAAAAHHHH, he's demolishing my pet argument about John Bingham by showing the Congress looked to all these jus soli sources to state the American law!!! Bwwwaaahhh!!! And citing James Madison makes my "two birth argument look silly! Bwaaahhhhhhh!! His guys all say the 'grandfather clause' was for the foreign-born like Hamilton; and I've got no one to say it was meant for George Washington!! Bwwaahhhhh. I don't want to play in his sandbox any more. He's a meanie!!!! BWwwaaahhhh!!!"
This has been about sources -- who's got them for support; whose sources actually were recognized as pertinent to this topic.
Now, when the 39th Congress was in the process of drafting the first of the two most significant pieces of legislation ever, the House Judiciary committee chair gave a summary of the existing U.S. law on birth-citizenship. And what authorities were cited to the Congress: Blackstone, Kent, Rawle, Sandford (Lynch v. Clarke), William Rawle, the Naturalization Act St. George Tucker described as "accordant" with Blackstone. These among many others.
Now, by contrast, who WASN'T cited to the Congress on the matter of birth-citizenship: Vatttel, G. Washington, Adams, Franklin, Wilson, Jay, B. Washington, Marshall, Samuel Roberts.
And when the SCOTUS argued and presented both sides of the first and greatest case on birth citizenship (Wong Kim Ark), which authorities were cited by the majority: Coke, Blackstone, Joseph Story, Kent, Sandford (Lynch v. Clarke). Among a host of others.
Now which authorities weren't cited as to birth citizenship, not even by Chief Justice Fuller in his dissent urging Vattel supply the rule of decision: G. Washington, Adams, Franklin, Jay, B. Washington, Marshall, Samuel Roberts.
So in the two great nineteenth century discussion on birth citizenship -- one in Congress; one in the Supreme Court -- it reads like a "Who's Who" of the very sources I've been putting forth.
Your proffered sources? They don't even get an invitation to either ball.
Now, why is this one might ask? Was the House Judiciary Committee Chair just sleeping on the job? Was Chief Justice Fuller just ignorant of Constitutional history? That's a hard explanation to sustain. So one looks for an alternative explanation for why someone else now raises these sources when they weren't raised then. That's an easy one: those sources simply aren't ones that were recognized as speaking to the topic, and DiogenesLamp is just inept when it comes to history and law.
Yeah, that explanation works.
Hardly, as the historical question is still "what understanding of English law had the Founders and Framers when they set forth our law?" On this, there can be no question that they looked first and foremost to Blackstone. Blackstone was the 2nd most cited political writer in this period (Vattel being about No. 30). And Blackstone was unequivocal:
"The children of aliens, born here in England, are generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such."
So, bully, you found some little snippet to suggest at one point in time in England someone phrased it a bit differently. But unless you can get this into the hands of a significant number of the Framers and also show they recognized such distinction in English law, all you've done is shoot off a dud.
Dream on. As I've shown you, Tucker set forth Blackstone's statement:
"The children of aliens, born here in England, are generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such."Then Tucker notes how U.S. laws are "accordant" (i.e., in agreement with Blackstone). Tucker quite clearly recognizes our law as jus soli. Though no doubt the cognitive dissonance keeps you from digesting this.
Really? You might want to finish Story's thought instead of conveniently ending it where it 'proves' your point-
that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth. >>> If he was born after 15 September, 1776, and his parents did not elect to become members of the State of New York, but adhered to their native allegiance at the time of his birth, then he was born a British subject. If he was in either way born a British subject, then he is to be deemed an alien and incapable to take the land in controversy by descent unless he had become at the time of the descent cast an American citizen by some act sufficient in point of law to work such a change of allegiance.
-----
BTW - providing actual links or webpages for other people's perusal is both useful and courteous........ with the side benefit of showing you aren't attempting cherry-pick your quotes.
Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor 28 U.S. 99 (1830)
Thanks for that clarification, MT. There is no excuse for dishonesty. Yet it’s difficult to defend a pathological liar without deceit. Lies spawn more lies, and more lies spawn bigger lies. Without such lies, Obama would never have made it into the primaries, much less beyond. But when state officials and the MSM are all willing to lie, the way is cleared for the worst, most destructive POTUS in history.
And somehow, for some reason, this makes the Obots happy.
Not to mention many of us who attended school in the 60's and 70's were taught this definition in history and government class -
Natural born citizenship is hereditary...you get it from your parents because you inherent their Allegiance.
(sigh)
Those who say the parents don’t matter are always, always defending Obama. [At least Cruz’ father wanted to become a citizen and loves the USA passionately and profoundly. Obama’s father hated and detested the USA, and passed it along to the son who wrote a paean to his father under the guise of a memoir.] Obama is the living, breathing embodiment of what the Framers feared. Obama hates the USA & most of its citizens. His ‘fundamental transformation’ is in fact destruction—and it’s so far along it may not be reversible.
As I pointed out to one of our more moonbatty Obots, Obama never misses a chance to favor terrorists and illegals over US citizens. Obama doesn’t care how many of our military men and women die due to his emptying of Gitmo; he is just favoring the group he identifies with over the group he hates. Same with illegals. He feels it is their right to rob, assault, injure, rape and murder US citizens, & he’s come right out and said that US citizens have no right to deny illegals residency and an outsized share of the benefits US citizens paid for. Obama is fundamentally sick, but it is the US that pays the price.
& all the while, our Obots cheer him on. He’s not the only one who’s sick.
Not really debating eligibility anymore. "Eligibility" no longer has any meaning.
The courts decide. They also decide the legality of gay marriage.
Which has nothing to do with what is the actual truth. We have reached a point in our system of governance where the truth and legal opinion have diverged widely. "Gay Marriage" is but one more glaring example of this.
You fail to make a distinction between IS Ted Cruz eligible and the arm chair quarterback topics of IF he should be and IF the founding fathers, the queens horses and queens men would have been agreed.
*I* am not debating whether or not Ted Cruz is eligible. I no longer care if he is or isn't. The acceptance of Barack Obama has made all such standards irrelevant, and I have no qualms about electing one of our guys to be President without any consideration of Article II. It no longer matters. It is a dead letter. Ted Cruz is one of my favorite potential candidates, and I would be quite happy to see him secure the nomination and win the Presidency. He is one of the very few potential candidates that I can be confident will put up an actual fight.
The legal matter is settled, and there are far far more pressing constitutional issues to deal with in my opinion.
Do we look like the sort of people upon whom weighty constitutional matters hang? Last I checked we were just a bunch of nondescript people arguing on the internet.
So far, you have insulted your audience, demonstrated an inability to stay on topic, and came off like a loonie.
The only person I have consistently insulted is that Obama legitimacy troll that had a chip on his shoulder when he showed up on this website. And he deserves all the insulting that comes his way.
I don’t suspect you will get far with that approach.
In order to measure the success or failure of any approach, one must first understand the intended goal. Do you think anyone is trying or even ought to be trying to persuade that kook? Why would we bother? He's an Obama troll. Do you think they are persuadable? I don't.
So far, nothing you have posted here is even close to enough to change my opinion.
Wasn't trying to change your opinion. I have learned a long time ago that most people have preconceived notions about things to which they will cling in the absence of any serious challenge, and few are susceptible to facts and reason. The chances are even less when they haven't even been offered much in the way of facts or reason to consider, so why should you expect to change your opinion based on anything you've seen so far?
I would be shocked if you did. It would mark you as someone easily swayed by whatever happens to be the prevailing winds. Of what use is someone who's positions are changed for light and transient reasons?
Just thought you should know. :-)
Wilson was one of the Convention Delegates, As well as a member of the ratifying convention of Pennsylvania. (To CpnKook, this is what is regarded as "Provenance." Look up the word sometime.) From his lectures on Law, he said this:
“Generally speaking,” says the great political authority, Aristotle,* “a citizen is one partaking equally of power and of subordination.”A citizen then—to draw his description as one of the people—I deem him, who acts a personal or a represented part in the legislation of his country. He has other rights; but his legislative I consider as his characteristick right. In this view, a citizen of the United States is he, who is a citizen of at least some one state in the Union: for the members of the house of representatives in the national legislature are chosen, in each state, by electors, who, in that state, have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.c In this view, a citizen of Pennsylvania is he, who has resided in the state two years; and, within that time, has paid a state or county tax: or he is between the ages of twenty one and twenty two years, and the son of a citizen.
Wilson, as you know, puts forth the Jus Sanguinus princkple elsewhere in his other writings, But here he cites Aristotle. What was Aristotle's definition of a citizen?
* Aristotle's position on citizenship was this:
But the citizen whom we are seeking to define is a citizen in the strictest sense, against whom no such exception can be taken, and his special characteristic is that he shares in the administration of justice, and in offices....
But in practice a citizen is defined to be one of whom both the parents are citizens;
I wonder if the founders were familiar with Aristotle?
Aristotle also wrote about the Athenian Constitution. I wonder what he said there?
Four years later, in the archonship of Lysicrates, thirty 'local justices', as they as they were called, were re-established; and two years afterwards, in the archonship of Antidotus, consequence of the great increase in the number of citizens, it was resolved, on the motion of Pericles, that no one should admitted to the franchise who was not of citizen birth by both parents.
And:
The present state of the constitution is as follows. The franchise is open to all who are of citizen birth by both parents.
Yeah, i'm pretty sure that the founders probably knew nothing about Greek Democracy and Aristotle. Too busy focusing on making our government look like the one in England I think. You know, that one with a *KING* or something.
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.