Replies

My but you are laughably obtuse and full of sophistry of the lowest order. I commend you on your “never say die” attitude, however, sometimes it is wiser to just bend and acquiesce to a stronger wind than to stand foolishly rigid.

Having already demonstrated to just about everyone here, except yourself, just how counterfactual and erroneous your contentions are, I will stand on my previous comment to which you are replying. Nothing further needs to be added to show the inherent fallacies in your speciousness and desperate arguments.

I had lots of fun, though.

In fact, I’ll even play one last game with you. Now that you are saying that “native” and “natural-born” are synonymous with each other-—according to your interpretation of Vattel, you said, “In point of fact, he defined them as meaning exactly the same thing”-—then you must ponder the following:

Vattel says, and I quote, “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

Therefore, according to your skewed understanding of Vattel, that would mean that even a “native-born” citizen must be born of “parents [plural] who are citizens [plural].”

So, now Obama isn’t even a “native-born” citizen, according to your Vattelian “point of fact.”

Yup, better stick with Blackwell (stone).

So long and thanks for all the fish.

Cheers

"Now that you are saying that “native” and “natural-born” are synonymous with each other-—according to your interpretation of Vattel, ..."

There you go!!! Ignoring that de Vattel never said anything about "natural born" and so your characterization above is false, finally somebody actually has made the effort to determine what de Vattel was actually saying. Of course, that's hard for Birthers because they are so fixated on somehow trying to tie de Vattel with a phrase he never uttered: "natural born citizen." So they never get around to considering about what he did say. And boy is it a doozie!

He never said that your not a natural born citizen if you don't have two citizen parents. He said you are not a citizen at all.

This of course would render almost 100 million American citizens suddenly completely stateless, and is in direct contradiction with the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and the entire history of Anglo-Saxon-American citizenship law... but it is what it is.

It is in fact another demonstration that in whatever esteem the Framers held de Vattel regarding admiralty law or treaties... they had no trouble ignoring him in those instances where his beliefs were contradictory to their own. We have seen that the Framers rejected his ideas by adopting the 2nd Amendment. We now see they rejected him regarding citizenship law as well. And he was rejected again when the 14th Amendment was written.