Replies

Well, if you were trying to prove there was a person named Emerich D. Vattel, and he wrote a book, and people read it---then you succeeded!!! IF, you were trying to prove that Emerich D. Vattel was the basis for NBCship in America, you continue to flounder.

Part of this is because you are reading 1814 cases (Oh, that is the year of the Battle of New Orleans!!! like the song in my Internet Article--Vattle Birthers Should Just STFU!!! from 2010) anyway---perhaps you should try reading Wong or even Minor and see how many times Vattel is quoted??? That way you can show how real live courts believe you. Right???

Or, you could just read my two latest Internet Articles to figure out where you are going wrong and repent:

Translators??? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Translators!!! (Unlike Vattle Birthers)

The Case The "Two Citizen Parent" Birthers Just HATE!!!

I Took a look at your two articles. It was some of the most ignorant and stupid commentary i've ever seen in my life. I initially believed you were an Obot. Now i'm hoping and praying to God that you ARE an Obot. The idea of someone like you on my side makes me shudder.

An example of one of your non-sequiturs.

In that response, several of the Vattle Birther’s CONCEPTUAL problems become evident. First, while John Jay and Alexander Hamilton were wonderful Americans, Hamilton died in 1804 and John Jay in 1829. Poor Old Emerich D. Vattel died in 1767, 8 1/2 years before the Declaration of Independence.

What on God's green earth does their time of death have to do with anything? It would be one thing to accuse them of fathering children after they died, but you seem to be insinuating that their deaths must have some sort of effect on their ideas. It is well known that Benjamin Franklin received three copies of Vattel's book (published in the original french) from Charles Dumas in 1775. Using your line of thought, it must have been impossible for someone who is dead to have ideas that lived beyond their lifetime. Ever hear of a fellow called "Jesus Christ"? "Plato"? "Aristotle"?

While what any of these people said might be important to a court in determining intent,

No! You think?

to focus on them while ignoring or misinterpreting the subsequent legal history is DISINGENUOUS and MISLEADING. Because things were happening well after all these people died.

And this is the kind of statement which makes me want to beat my head against the wall and pull my hair out. A stupider misunderstanding of the salient point I cannot imagine. What happened after the founding era is IRRELEVANT to what were the meanings of concepts ratified in the founding era. Subsequent legal history is inconsequential regarding articles of the Constitution. Unless they are SPECIFICALLY repealed, Articles of the Document which CREATED THE COURTS are still in effect. Subsequent judges cannot rule them void, the articles have higher legal authority than does the judges. Congress cannot vote them void, the Document has higher legal authority than Congress.

You may not comprehend this (I have seen scant evidence that you comprehend anything more complicated than kitties and blue jays, and even then I consider that to be a meeting of the minds between equals.) but the ONLY thing which can abrogate a requirement of constitutional law is a Constitutional Amendment, passed by Congress and voted on by 3/4ths of the State Legislators of the existing states.

I am going to have to start ignoring your posts. I find myself tasting idiocy for hours after reading anything you have written.