Posted on 02/09/2012 9:10:05 AM PST by Oldpuppymax
If South Carolina had the authority to define Citizenship, prior to the 14th Amendment -—
How on Earth can you radical birthers claim that the Founders supported your view, and only your view, and that your view could not be changed by legislation, since your view, and the views of the Frenchman, Vattel, are somehow United States Constitutional Law?
Take up knitting, stamp collecting or some other hobby.
You really suck at legal analysis.
Wait a minute. Are you trying to deny what Madison said??? Or are you just too stupid to understand that EACH state had its own laws on citizenship??
How on Earth can you radical birthers claim that the Founders supported your view, and only your view, and that your view could not be changed by legislation, since your view, and the views of the Frenchman, Vattel, are somehow United States Constitutional Law?
Vattel wasn't a Frenchman. He was Swiss. His works are widely cited by the Supreme Court and by our founders and lawmakers. His own nationality is secondary to the universal principles he wrote about. That's the point of the Constitution in specifying a natural-born citizen requirement for President. The members of Congress, who represent the several states, can be citizens of their respective states under whatever citizenship laws those states prescribe. To be the president of the nation, however, the founders chose a law that is universal to all states and nations, and not subject to the whims of any particular state nor to the whims of common legislation NOR subject to the monarchy to which the founders rebelled against.
Yet you claim such CAN be done by the States, prior to the 14th??
This is why you folks can't win in court. You do not have very good legal minds on your side of this argument.
You do understand that neither of the things you're talking about has anything to do with presidential eligibility, right?? The issue isn't about basic citizenship. You're trying to argue something that is completely different and completely irrelevant. After all, YOU introduced James Madison into this discussion and it doesn't support your belief. You can admit you're wrong. It's okay. Better people than you do this all the time.
You have all stated that Congress had NO power to change the rules for “Citizenship at Birth” at some time or another. That is clearly false.
Also, you can not show that Madison or any of the Founders agreed with your version of the Constitutional language.
Without defining legislation, perhaps two citizen parents were required at one time. Now we have defining legislation and such is not required.
Natural Born Citizen means Citizen at the Moment of Birth.
You can find nothing from any of delegate to the Constitutional Convention that shows:
1. Your view of Natural Born Citizen is correct, at the time of our founding.
2. Your view of Natural Born Citizen could not be changed through simple legislation, or was not changed by the 14th Amendment.
Madison WAS a delegate.
Madison WROTE most of the Constitution.
Vattel was NOT a delegate.
This a fabrication. If this were true, then we would all be arguing that the 14th amendment is invalid. The argument is about natural-born citizenship, not "citizenship at birth." The Supreme Court said NBC is defined OUTSIDE of the Constitution. The law can't touch this unless the Constitution is specifically amended to redefine this specific term.
Also, you can not show that Madison or any of the Founders agreed with your version of the Constitutional language.
Do you suffer from memory loss too?? I've already shown that Madison argued a combination of jus soli AND jus sanguinis to make a colleague into a citizen. How the hell does that NOT agree with the definition of NBC: born in the country to citizen parents???
Without defining legislation, perhaps two citizen parents were required at one time. Now we have defining legislation and such is not required.
There's no defining legislation for NBC. The SCOTUS affirmed this on TWO occasions.
Natural Born Citizen means Citizen at the Moment of Birth.
Wrong. NBC means "all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens." What you're citing is only a reference to an independent characterization of British common law by a legal historian. It is NOT a legal definition, and it was certainly never accepted by the court to define NBC.
You can find nothing from any of delegate to the Constitutional Convention that shows: ....
Madison is on my side. John Jay is on my side. George Washington is on my side. The historian and founding father David Ramsay is on my side. The SCOTUS is on my side ... several times over.
Madison said that we need go no further than to show that the person in question was born on US Soil, so you fail again on that point.
You INVENT support when it is not there.
This is why no elected official is on your side, in this argument. You are wasting your time, which is your right to do.
However, more and more conservatives will begin to object to the waste of time and money and effort you request, of the conservative movement for this Quixotic adventure of yours.
Happy 1st FR Birthday, blueunicorn6! :)
Yeah, I noticed that. Seems like the conversation kind of ended when I asked whether the Kenyan BC would have had to be accepted by Malihi in the same situation.
“Judge’s knowledge” works both ways, and if Malihi’s decision doesn’t get taken down on appeal I strongly suggest that Georgians force the State of Georgia to live with the precedent they just set so they can see how absolutely ridiculous it is - and dangerous.
Maybe Georgians should press the issue now so the appeals court realizes exactly what they’re dealing with and can use the appeal to make SURE they get rid of that precedent.
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.