You are like the dog who thinks he chases cars away.
Posted on 07/09/2015 9:51:39 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
Given that our Constitution is replete with English law terminology, either a) the Framers did a poor job of stripping English law out or b) you're an idiot.
Yeah, I'm going with option b) here, which is always the money bet.
Likewise if you read the ratification debates of the several states, Vattel and Law of Nations is mentioned quite a lot,
And my surmise is that most all of those times he's mentioned it's in relationship to international law, which is how he's referenced by the Courts. He doesn't show up much when municipal (domestic) law is cited. And citizenship is a matter of domestic law (or have you forgotten that lesson, too?)
Yes it did, and that meaning was clarified by it's usage in 1776, and it wasn't "natural born subject."
Yet, subsequently, we still find "natural born subject" and "natural born citizen" being used interchangeably, despite your belief that just couldn't be so. What we don't find between 1776 and 1787 is an instance of the English "natural born citizen" being used to convey the sense of "from like parents." "Natural born" meant still, as it did before, what it does in English today: simply, "having that nature at birth."
In fact, the Usage of the word "Citizen" is pretty much a consequence of Vattel's "Le droit des gens, et les devoirs des citoyens,
You raise the technique of 'assertion without argument or evidence' to artform.
That claim is just plain silly. "Citizen" had a usage in English before Vattel came along. Montesquieu was the most cited political writer in the period 1760 to 1805, and he writes extensively about the nature and role of "citizens." (And where does Vattel rank on that study? Oh, right. Vattel comes in at number 29).
If you've got some evidence that "citizen" as used in the U.S. derived from Vattel, let's see it. So far it's just assertion and hand waving.
The default position of those who do not know what was the intent of the Congress is "English law."
Right. Given that every state then enacted some form of "common law reception statute", it's just shocking that that English law was seen as the context for so much of the Constitutional language. It appears they were lacking your wisdom 230 years later as to what Congress intended. Or, perhaps, the citizens and state legislatures had discourse with those present in Philadelphia and so understood better than you why English law still served in large measure as the legal and Constitutional framework.
Yeah, well look up who he Appointed to that same Position just prior to Rawle.
So on the 'provenance scale,' so to speak, Rawle is one step removed from Washington, whereas Roberts is two via Lewis. Again, you make points that are at best irrelevant, but often undermine your own argument.
In any case, the point I made in my (two) previous post(s) still stands: with the 39th Congress and ratification of the 14th Amendment, you lose either way. EVEN IF the meaning of "natural born citizen" was left ambiguous at the start, by affixing a clear consensus that the Congress understood "existing law" of natural born citizen to be jus soli as to the native born and indicating the 14A birth citizenship language has that same meaning, then by Amendment any ambiguity has been resolved and henceforth "natural born citizen" HAS THAT MEANING.
There is some evidence for this later argument; Primarily the fact that I continue engaging in conversation with you. So while you have your handy pocket constitution out there, I want you to look up the latest word on "corruption of blood", "primogeniture", perpetual allegiance, and state required tithing.
As James Madison said:
Since the Revolution every State has made great inroads & with great propriety in many instances on this monarchical code. The "revisal of the laws" by a Committe of wch. Col. Mason was a member, though not an acting one, abounds with such innovations. The abolition of the right of primogeniture, which I am sure Col. Mason does not disapprove, falls under this head. What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G. B. a thousand heterogeneous & antirepublican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law.
And citizenship is a matter of domestic law
You are an idiot. You are special class of idiot. You are of the arrogant/stupid kind that is completely unaware of the fact. Citizenship is a matter of INTERNATIONAL law. It is the manner of distinguishing the Citizens of one nation from another, and in such a manner that other nations respect it.
Yet, subsequently, we still find "natural born subject" and "natural born citizen" being used interchangeably, despite your belief that just couldn't be so.
In the manner that terms "gun" and "weapon" are interchangeable. One is just more specific than the other, but each one is analogous to the other.
What we don't find between 1776 and 1787 is an instance of the English "natural born citizen" being used to convey the sense of "from like parents."
Again, the usage of the word "Citizen" identifies it as Vattel's idea. Again, the word was not in common usage prior to Vattel's Droit Des Gens.
That claim is just plain silly. "Citizen" had a usage in English before Vattel came along.
Yes, I know. Shakespeare used it a bit, but in the context of someone who lives in a City, not in the context of the population of a Nation.
Montesquieu was the most cited political writer in the period 1760 to 1805, and he writes extensively about the nature and role of "citizens." (And where does Vattel rank on that study? Oh, right. Vattel comes in at number 29).
I'm sure that in matters of Mundane law, Blackstone was also highly cited, but citizenship is in a specific area of law. Apart from that, the Supreme Court asserted in 1978 "The international jurist most widely cited in the first 50 years after the Revolution was Emmerich de Vattel."
Or, perhaps, the citizens and state legislatures had discourse with those present in Philadelphia and so understood better than you why English law still served in large measure as the legal and Constitutional framework.
In matters not contradictory with the new principles of US Government, the most significant of which is the distinction between a "citizen" and a "subject." If we followed English common law, we would owe perpetual allegiance to the Crown. *THAT* was the first English law we tossed.
So on the 'provenance scale,' so to speak, Rawle is one step removed from Washington, whereas Roberts is two via Lewis. Again, you make points that are at best irrelevant, but often undermine your own argument.
William Lewis was a member of the Pennsylvania Legislature when they ratified the US Constitution. Rawle was a friend of Washington, and not a convention delegate, but do not mistake me here. I am not asserting Rawle was mistaken. I am asserting that Rawle knowingly and did deliberately lie and attempt to mislead people about which source of Law the United States followed. Rawle was surrounded by people who did not accept his arguments regarding citizenship, among them Benjamin Franklin, Jared Ingersoll and James Wilson, all Delegates to the Convention.
Rawle was well aware that his was the minority opinion regarding issues of citizenship, and long after many people who knew better were safely dead, he wrote his book, calling it "A View" of the Constitution, as if to say the subject matter was still being debated.
Regarding your babble about the 14th amendment, a sh*t I do not give. You cannot retroactively redefine the term, and in fact, you can't redefine it at all. It would be like trying to redefine "pi." If mankind tries to change it's meaning by statute, it's no longer "natural", but is instead "artificial" and subject to whatever whim the legislative body currently possesses.
Hey, DumbDumb, I already schooled you on this point previously:
It's a point about the Supremacy Clause. Starting in 1776, the various states began enacting what are called "common law adoption statutes." And from there, the state legislatures began enacting various statutes to modify, limit, abrogate or otherwise "tweak" the common law rules to fit particular local preferences. Had the Convention in 1787 purported to incorporate the common law wholesale into federal law, by virtue of the Supremacy Clause everything the states had done legislatively (or judicially) since 1776 (or the date of their adoption statute) would have been undone.
You're in vain making the point that English law was rejected in total. On matters of municipal law (e.g, citizenship) they very much adopted and adapted English rules. (See, e.g., Jefferson's Virginia citizenship statute -- Post 379 above). And at the time of the Convention (as I've shown) there had been since 1776 prior, interchangeable usage of "natural born subject" and "natural born citizen." And there is no prior usage of "natural born" signifying "from like parents." So when we arrive at the Convention, it's ludicrous to posit that the Framers picked the term "NBC" and ascribed to it a meaning different from the prior usage in English of "natural born," and that they did this with no record of discussion that such is what they were doing. You've yet to explain that. But, clearly, it's a strained cast on history which you're forced to adopt to make your theory work.
But, being the good ostrich that you are, you just stick your head in the sand and ignore the refutation.
Citizenship is a matter of INTERNATIONAL law. It is the manner of distinguishing the Citizens of one nation from another, and in such a manner that other nations respect it.
No, DumbDumb, I've already schooled you on this point, too.
"[M]unicipal law determines how citizenship may be acquired[.]" Perkin v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939). It is axiomatic that every nation determines for itself who are its citizens.
As is typical, you merely assert what is essential to your argument without a shred of support. Yours is a "tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing."
Again, the usage of the word "Citizen" identifies it as Vattel's idea. Again, the word was not in common usage prior to Vattel's Droit Des Gens.
Wrong and wrong. "Citizen" was in use by political writers discussing this topic from the time of Aristotle on down. You're just ridiculously off-base here. And, again, you assert with no support.
Apart from that, the Supreme Court asserted in 1978 "The international jurist most widely cited in the first 50 years after the Revolution was Emmerich de Vattel."
And the Supreme Court 50 years before that makes clear that citizenship is a matter of municipal (domestic) law, not international law. That makes Vattel not much of an authority since he's cited only as to international law.
Or are you here going to argue that Perkins v. Elg is the "modern court" and disregard it at the same time you're holding up a case from 1978 and claiming it's authoritative? You are nothing if not hopelessly inconsistent.
the most significant of which is the distinction between a "citizen" and a "subject."
There can be recognized distinctions between "citizen" and "subject," treating them as analogous with respect to the differing forms of government, while accepting that the means of becoming the one or the other at birth can follow the same rules. Authoritative writers like Swift, Tucker, Kent, Rawle, Sandford all recognized this.
Rawle was surrounded by people who did not accept his arguments regarding citizenship, among them Benjamin Franklin, Jared Ingersoll and James Wilson, all Delegates to the Convention.
Horse crap. There's NO evidence that any of the three of those disagreed with Rawle. You just make this sh*t up in your mind a spew it out as fact.
You cannot retroactively redefine the term, and in fact, you can't redefine it at all.
Nonsense. The Constitution specifically allows for amendment, and you're claiming that by later Amendment a term cannot be clarified? You just get more ridiculous the more I press you on these issues. You have previously accepted that there may have been more than one view initially as to what "natural born citizen" meant. It wasn't some monolithic, defined-once-for-all thing like "pi."
If mankind tries to change it's meaning by statute, it's no longer "natural", but is instead "artificial" and subject to whatever whim the legislative body currently possesses.
You mistakenly conceive of natural law in some odd biological sense. The draftsman of the 14th Amendment citizenship clause knew better:
"A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws..... They became such in virtue of national law, or rather of natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States, as were born in the country or were made such by naturalization; and the Constitution declares that they are entitled, as citizens, to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States." Sen. Jacob Howard, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 2765 (1866).
But you are wrong about so many things, even I'm beginning to lose track. It's no wonder why no one else here purports to support the drivel you dish out.
You are exceedingly ignorant, and worse. As Reagan said:
"The trouble with our opponents is not that they are ignorant... it's that they know so much which isn't so. "
That's you. You know so much that isn't so, and you insist on trying to share your willful ignorance with others.
Nobody gives a crap what you think either. Or have you not noticed that NO ONE even tries to support your lame arguments when they are picked apart?
Here are THINGS I KNOW ABOUT WHICH YOU'VE BEEN SHOWN BE IN ERROR:
1. I know that citizenship is a matter of municipal (domestic) law, not international law. The Supreme Court backs me up. Who backs you up? No one. You just have to argue that to try prop up Vattel. Sorry, big FAIL on that point.
2. I know that neither Washington (George or Bushrod), Adams, Franklin, Wm. Lewis, John Marshall nor the other "authorities" you try passing off in support said one peep about some "citizen parent" element to "natural born citizen." You read into them what isn't there. Hand-waving pure and simple. Roberts gives you support, but one lone obscure historical figure doesn't get you very far.
3. I know Swift, Kent, St. George Tucker, Justice Story, Rawle, Chancellor Sandford, Justice Curtiss, Justice Swayne -- and others I'm not even bothering with at present -- all clearly articulate that the rule on natural born citizen in the U.S. is is jus soli as to the native born (save for the common law exceptions and Indians). And I can easily produce their statements that show that.
4. I know that every historical text or commentary on the Constitution that speaks on the point confirms that the "grandfather clause" was adopted for the benefit of the foreign-born patriots like Hamilton and Wilson. And I offered James Madison who provides the theory for why Washington, etc. were self-viewed as "natural born citizens." You disagree the clause was for Washington, etc., but then offer not one bit of historical evidence in support nor have you even tried to explain why Madison doesn't make you out to be an idiot.
5. I know that John Bingham wasn't speaking at odds with his "learned friend," Judiciary Chairman Wilson. Your "history lesson" is to force your reading on to Bingham, but then be stupidly silent when pressed as to why neither Bingham nor Wilson (nor anyone else in that chamber) caught wind of this supposed disagreement. Your history lessons are bogus.
6. And I know that Justice Gray was SPOT-ON in his reading of the history of "natural born citizen" and the meaning and impact of the 14th Amendment, because Gray correctly discerned that the 39th Congress in stating they were affirming "existing law" made abundantly clear that the existing law of "natural born citizen" was jus soli ("You're not going to go down the path that Jeff Winston did," you said in your usual snark. Oh, yes, I did. And the results have left you silent.
In short, near every credentialed legal and historical commentator is in agreement with me on these issues. You're in the "A Few Loons Club" along with the likes of Apuzzo.
See, when it's a true b*tch slapping, the points over which the other person has been flogged are easily summarized, like I've just done.
You, by contrast, are reduced to mere whining and moaning.
Blah blah blah. Nobody is reading this thread anymore, so you don’t have an audience for your obnoxious posturing.
Yes they are reading this thread...just so you know...and I doubt I’m alone....
What WILL we do?
Nothing. Too late.
But who says I need an audience? It suffices to toss you around for the sheer enjoyment and satisfaction.
I follow your logic but if you think about it he’s had it both ways. A win-win for the Kenyan president of the USA.
Our country needs a patriot as POTUS!
Well you can be his audience then, but I will give you fair warning. His show is boring, repetitious, goes in circles, and makes you dumber for having watched it.
I like reading both sides of your debate...interesting enough to me. Though it’s a bit late in the show to be running over old news which won’t make any difference at this late stage in the game.
You are like the dog who thinks he chases cars away.
His father was NOT an immigrant to the United States. 
This disgusting Curse on our Nation named Barack Hussein Obama II, aka Barry Soetoro, has a real birth certificate, with his right footprint on it.
People can go to www.scribd.com and read their pages 20 thru 32 , 
There were 8 attempts by Democrats to try to "Change the Qualification Rules" BEFORE Obama was elected.
Mother had been refused entry to airplanes due to her nine month pregnancy. .svg/250px-Kenya_(orthographic_projection).svg.png)
From the Airline Timetable Images - List of Complete Timetables, the cost of BOAC from April 24,1960 until October 1, 1962 was:
Look at all the financial supporters Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. had.Most of these early "supporters" of the ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT IN CHIEF were party to the Communists "spooks".
There's a great volume of history you have to go through to understand this, and it goes back to about 1850.
Read these three articles on one of my earlier post:
It's deep, it's ugly, and most people WILL NOT ... CAN NOT ... accept the truth.
How deep into the debate have you gotten? What captain dumbo doesn't grasp is that so much of this topic was hashed out before he ever arrived on the scene, and that people are just fed up with going over and over the same asinine ground with Obama Legitimacy trolls.
He never shows up with anything new, just the same old talking points he gloms off of Dr. Conspiracy, and anything he hasn't seen before, he just immediately dismisses without having allowed any of it to pass through his cognitive facilities.
I've researched this subject for years, and I've found lots of interesting connections between various events, and they fill out a lot of the missing details of which most people are unaware. Pointing them out to a person like him is just a waste of time. He has them dismissed before they have even been presented.
He's a fanatic, not a searcher for truth. Any contradictory truth is immediately dismissed by him, and so it become pointless to even present it.
He simply wants the answer to conform to what he wishes it is, and if it doesn't, so much worse for the facts!
Anyways, if you want to see some interesting facts, give me an idea of where you are, and I can show you stuff which I expect you haven't seen.
We’re all ears.
I have no doubt of that...but it is a mute issue. Even if true. There isn't enough push behind it currently, and besides unless the New Presidential administration chooses to follow through on it it won't make any difference now.
Furthermore there are far too many issues that will need immediate attention. That does not mean the new administration couldn't reverse some of Obamas decisions based on it. But I think they have plenty enough to do it without that. Even so it's just wise to keep it on the back burner if it could be absolutely proved. So far it hasn't shown enough to validate the complaint.
How about we start at the beginning? "What's the beginning?" you may ask. Tough question, because history never really starts or ends, does it?
We have to start somewhere, so for the time being let's start with James Otis.
Why start with him? Because as near as I can tell, *HE* is the guy who kicked off the revolution.
“Otis was a flame of Fire! With the promptitude of Clasical Allusions, a depth of Research, a rapid Summary of Historical Events and dates, a profusion of legal Authorities, a prophetic glare of his eyes into futurity, and a rapid Torrent of impetuous Eloquence, he hurried away all before him; American Independance was then and there born. The seeds of Patriots and Heroes to defend the non sine Diis animosus infans, to defend the vigorous Youth, were then and there sown. Every man of an [immense] crowded Audience appeared to me to go away, as I did, ready to take up Arms against Writts of Assistants. Then and there was the first scene of the first Act of Opposition to the arbitrary Claims of Great Britain. Then and there the child Independance was born. In fifteen years, i.e. in 1776, he grew up to manhood, declared himself free.”1
So what was inspiring James Otis around this time? Well here is one of his pamphlets from 1764.
Wow. Imagine that.
Yes it is, which is another reason I have little patience for that jackass. The "truth", whatever it may be, is academic at this point. Nobody feels like beating their brains out looking up cites and links anymore. Captain Jackass should have showed up six years ago if he wanted into the thick of the discussion on Free Republic. Nowadays it's beating a dead horse, except for it's impact on issues like "anchor babies" and "birth tourism."
Even so it's just wise to keep it on the back burner if it could be absolutely proved. So far it hasn't shown enough to validate the complaint.
Especially for people who don't want it to be proven. As Upton Sinclair said:
'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.'
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.
