“I read the transcript of what Levin said and it translates into, “Who are you to question what I say? Just go away, you little peons.” Very disappointing. I’d expect that from somebody like Nancy Pelosi but coming from Mark Levin it just saddens and sickens me.”
I don’t think you are right about this. I have been debating Vattle Birthers for several days now at another place, and what is going on is that the Vattle Birthers are just sooo wrong and messed up that people don’t think they are even being honest about it, because really how stupid is it that somebody supposedly doesn’t understand these 3 paragraphs from a SCOTUS (which means Supreme Court of the U.S.) case:
“It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.13
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 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.
Sooo, that is why I bet Mark Levin is mad at the Vattle Birthers, because like he said, There’s No debate. There’s nothing to all the Vattle birther stuff and it is just time to call it what it is-—CRAP. 100% CRAP.
Yes, people who do not understand the Supreme Court's rulings on Citizenship really are STUPID and IGNORANT. The paragraphs of this ruling for example:
From the Syllabus:
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.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL:
The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."
"The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the laws or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages."
1814 was close enough to the founding era that they ought to know what they are talking about. Chief Justice Marshall cites Vattel as the basis for citizenship. You, of course, think they must be idiots or something.
What case is that quotation from?