Maine Gov. LePage, my Canadian-born daughters "had to be naturalized, they couldn't be natural"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=AUzamofCx-c#t=10 ^ | Mar 2, 2016

[GBA]

So, without answering directly, you're saying that A = C and C = A?

Birth Citizenship A:

Birthplace: Any state, USA
Father’s citizenship: American
Mother’s citizenship: American

Birth Citizenship C:

Birthplace: Any state, USA
Father’s citizenship: Any nation’s citizenship but NOT American
Mother’s Citizenship: Any nation’s citizenship but NOT American

I maintain that you are in error when you say that C, an anchor baby's citizenship, is exactly the same as that of A, someone born here to citizen parents.

Obviously, C's inheritance by birth is different than what A received.

Therefore, Citizenship C is NOT equal to (is not the same in all respects and aspects as) Citizenship A.

Do you not see that?

[taxcontrol]

British law WAS supreme. For the American colonist, there was no higher authority than the crown and further, the colonists were shut out of the law making process.

This why the American revolution occurred, to throw off British law and replace it with the Constitution. The underlying premise is that a nation can only govern via the consent of the governed.

If one does not wish to be governed by the Constitution, there are but two choices -

1) Move to some other territory outside the control of the Constitution -or-
2) over throw the government.

[taxcontrol]

I would point out that your assertion that Congress’s authority is only for naturalization is incorrect. The authority extends to a

uniform (states dont have authority)
RULES (all rules as in who does and does not i.e. citizen at birth need naturalization) of
Nationalization (the process of conferring nationality after birth)

Further

[Godebert]

Incoherent.

[taxcontrol]

You are describing the way you WANT things to be. And you are more than entitled to that position. Heck, I would prefer a meritocracy.

However, that is not the current law.

Current law says that A = C and C = A. A citizen at birth who has never been naturalized, is naturally born a US citizen and qualifies as an NBC.

[taxcontrol]

That response is the logical fallacy of personal incredulity.

[GBA]

So...YOU believe that A = C and C = A, is that true?

You're saying that A and C are identical in all respects and aspects, is that right?

We can debate what we believe the laws say later.

First, I'd like to see if there is a starting point for a common belief and what that belief might be.

If you are building something so important on a foundation of babble, then I'm not a builder.

Instead, I'm getting as far away from that as possible so it doesn't fall on me and what's left of my integrity.

[centurion316]

Be nice. Goedbert has learned a new word today. He has used it twice in this thread. After he has practiced some more, he will incorporate it into a sentence. This is how learning is advanced. It’s hard being a latter day birther at Free Republic. The ranks have been greatly reduced and they have had to resort to attacking Republican candidates as the Democrat candidates were born in the United States even though they have both exhibited allegiance to an international political philosophy aimed at destroying the United States as well as other nation states founded on liberty and self rule.

[DiogenesLamp]

Be nice. Goedbert has learned a new word today. He has used it twice in this thread. After he has practiced some more, he will incorporate it into a sentence. This is how learning is advanced. It’s hard being a latter day birther at Free Republic. The ranks have been greatly reduced and they have had to resort to attacking Republican candidates as the Democrat candidates were born in the United States even though they have both exhibited allegiance to an international political philosophy aimed at destroying the United States as well as other nation states founded on liberty and self rule.

Or in other words "nutter".

[Svartalfiar]

It is the term used to describe a body of thought prevalent in the later half of the 18th century, and early half of the 19th century. In the case of the United States, it is not esoteric or ambiguous, the writers of natural law are identified by the founders and even mentioned prominently in the debates regarding the US Constitution.

"Natural law" was a thing, back in the late 18th century, and it's tenets were identifiable by the founders citing their sources of it.

Not really, it goes back much further than that. There's been discussion on natural law from Aquinas, Hobbes, back to Plato and the Greeks. The problem, however, is that we still don't have a consistent, concrete, overarching natural law defined. All of the thinking about it is simply that: thinking, philosophy, thought. Like I asked earlier: what is the natural law(s)?

Now I will ask you a simple question. Where did the word "citizen" come from?

I couldn't tell you, but I would assume it comes from some Greek/Roman/Latin words. Likely to do with the duty of the individual to the people as a whole, in return for the responsibility of the people as a whole to the individual. But again, the development of the word and what it means is something else you can debate. To me, the term generally implies some form of freedom, responsibilities and duties on the part of the people. But, is a king's subject a citizen? What about a slave? What are your thoughts? Also, that's something defined by the law, so there's a set definition you can refer to. Of course, it depends on which part of law you look at. Off the top of my head I believe the IRS defines citizen slightly differently from immigration law. No major differences, but the wording isn't verbatim.

Sort of like the terms "Male" and "Female." Till we have a legal definition, we will never know exactly what those words mean. :)

That actually reinforces my point. We do have biological and medical definitions. XX and XY. (There are some genetic abnormalities, but they're almost all still male- or female-specific.) BUT, there aren't, in many places, any legal definitions. And now we have people trying to swap 'genders', guys sneaking into female restrooms, people changing BCs, getting chopoffmydickotomies. And there isn't a legal male/female definition, and now there's a decent bit of confusion with that stuff. Should we need a legal definition for such obvious terms? No. Do we? Looking at society, we're starting to.

On a side note, male and female are not quite as vague and debatable as NBC though :p

[centurion316]

Or in other words "nutter".

I certainly do find the birthers to be "nutters", and least on this topic and further that the arguments that they advance are laughable. That would include you and Goedbert. However, I have no reason to believe that otherwise you are not upstanding citizens, true patriots, and not otherwise fine fellows. The birther stuff is just more than a little odd. I have relatives like that and I enjoy them greatly. If you are going to carry on about the dogma of birtherism, you have to expect a certain degree of ridicule, especially since the track record of your position over the past 8 years is abysmal and it doesn't look to get any better. I know that you are trying to convince others to agree with your point of view, but since I disagree with almost every point, I am going to stand against it. It's just business.

[taxcontrol]

What I believe is irrelevant. What the law says is relevant and yes, that is what the law says.

There is only one possible starting point for this discussion. What authority is the supreme authority for the United States? If you answer anything other than the US Constitution, we can stop right there.

[DiogenesLamp]

Not really, it goes back much further than that. There's been discussion on natural law from Aquinas, Hobbes, back to Plato and the Greeks. The problem, however, is that we still don't have a consistent, concrete, overarching natural law defined. All of the thinking about it is simply that: thinking, philosophy, thought.

Their body of thought was also incorporated into the founders contemplations of the subject, but it is really the newer philosophers which inspired the founders in their application of theory to practice.

Locke, Wolfe, Burlamaqui, Rutherford, Puffendorf, Grotius, Rousseau, Vattel and so on were the men who inspired the founders to act regarding their ideas about natural law.

Like I asked earlier: what is the natural law(s)?

That isn't really the question. The English had their own version of "natural law" and it said perpetual allegiance was owed to the King, because the King was the chosen servant of God. There were competing versions of natural law.

The question is "Which version of natural law did the founders apply in creating the United State? "

I couldn't tell you, but I would assume it comes from some Greek/Roman/Latin words.

French. It probably started out as "CIVIS" from Latin, and evolved into Citizen.

But again, the development of the word and what it means is something else you can debate.

It is an interesting word. Blackstone uses the word a few times, and so does Shakespeare, but always referring to inhabitants of a

The Etymology says that it's usage as "inhabitant of a country" is late 14th century. Prior to that, the word meant Denizen of a City. I asked myself why that was, and tried to match up the word's emergence with events of that time. I believe I have found what appears to me to be a correlation with a particular event. city.

The word doesn't seem to be listed in any English Law dictionaries of the period, and i've looked at three different versions from the mid 1700s. It is literally not a term which is used in English law.

And that begs for the question; "Why did we change?" The normal word for the Colonists was "Subject", yet we find Jefferson erasing the word "Subject" and replacing it with the word "Citizen" when he wrote the Declaration in 1776.

Why did he use this word citizen? From what I can find out, it was not a commonly used word, at least not by English speaking peoples. They always used "Subject", because that's what they always were.

Something caused them to change the word to "citizen." Perhaps if we trace the usage of the word "citizen", we can trace their meaning behind it? We already know where the word "Subject" comes from, and the founders chose not to go that direction.

[DiogenesLamp]

Sort of like the terms "Male" and "Female." Till we have a legal definition, we will never know exactly what those words mean. :)

That actually reinforces my point. We do have biological and medical definitions. XX and XY. (There are some genetic abnormalities, but they're almost all still male- or female-specific.) BUT, there aren't, in many places, any legal definitions. And now we have people trying to swap 'genders', guys sneaking into female restrooms, people changing BCs, getting chopoffmydickotomies.

We don't have any legal definitions because it was never thought necessary to define "natural law" concepts such as gender. They are self-evident.

And that reinforces MY point. :)

.

.

And there isn't a legal male/female definition, and now there's a decent bit of confusion with that stuff. Should we need a legal definition for such obvious terms? No. Do we? Looking at society, we're starting to.

That would be a case of treating the symptom and not the disease. The disease is a society moving against natural law as opposed to one moving in harmony with it. This is a good point for me to interject this video. I'm trying to get people to see it because I think it's message is profound.

On a side note, male and female are not quite as vague and debatable as NBC though :p

Not yet, but like "Natural Citizen" they eventually will be, because people will have interjected nonsense in the interim.

[DiogenesLamp]

especially since the track record of your position over the past 8 years is abysmal and it doesn't look to get any better.

I am relating what I see as "Objective truth", which does not derive from consensus. You may or may not find my commentary regarding the word "citizen" interesting.

[DiogenesLamp]

There is only one possible starting point for this discussion. What authority is the supreme authority for the United States?

God.

If you answer anything other than the US Constitution, we can stop right there.

You should have stopped awhile back. You are just misleading people.

[centurion316]

This is an excellent question. Certainly, in English common law and in our American experience as part of the British nascent Empire, we would have called ourselves subjects, the only alternate term being available was “Peers”. As practically none of us could assert a peerage in the realm of Great Britain, that choice was clearly inappropriate.

When we declared ourselves, separate and independent, we had to fix upon a term. Subject would not do as we had declared that we were not subject to any king, certainly not one each George III, the German King of Great Britain. Were we subjects of the Constitution. That wouldn’t work since it did not exist. We were certainly not subject to any individual. We were separate and apart from the kingdoms of nation states of Europe. As such, we decided to call us citizens, even though that that term has previously applied to the inhabitants of a walled city. Certainly, that was not us, but it worked and the French, in an adulterated way adopted the word.

Most of the founders understood the notion of English Common Law, but they were not limited to the laws of the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Their primarily source was Blackstone’s, but rarely they cited Vattel as other scholarly works. They started with a blank page, but they were guided by the tradition and precedence of English Common Law. One point they rejected was the Crown, which made this us a subject of a person chosen by lineal descent.

Thus we called ourselves citzens, a revolutionary notion. It was a beautiful thing. The French, of course, took it too the extreme, but we never really liked the French much.

[centurion316]

You may or may not find my commentary regarding the word "citizen" interesting.

I did find it interesting and I have already replied. Great post.

[DiogenesLamp]

As such, we decided to call us citizens, even though that that term has previously applied to the inhabitants of a walled city. Certainly, that was not us, but it worked and the French, in an adulterated way adopted the word.

Non Monsieur, the word was utilized to describe the inhabitants of a nation for Centuries prior to our adopting it, but not in English usage.

It's usage to describe the inhabitants of a Nation stems from the late 14th century, say around 1370.

:)

[DiogenesLamp]

I did find it interesting and I have already replied. Great post.

It gets potentially more interesting.

:)