Posted on 09/29/2011 8:43:31 AM PDT by Politics4US
Mark Levin says Rubio is a natural born citizen, and threatens to ban birthers on his social sites.
Not strange at all.
Things are not always what you want them to be. Such is life.
I stand by what I said. I trust Mark’s expertise more than yours.
More post-modernism. Asking two questions politely is not rude by any known definition.
However, according to you, it’s rude if YOU say it’s rude.
How liberal of you.
That’s what I want to do too, to get somebody eligible into the White House.
But I also want to deal with the real problems that got us here. You’ve mentioned one of them and I agree whole-heartedly with your assessment: the citizenry is half brain-dead. We have to fix that.
But the Constitution provided for the nation to still be protected even if the masses are too stupid to protect themselves. That’s why we have a Constitution that can’t be changed by a simple majority the way a President can be elected by a simple majority (of electoral votes).
It’s like the lock-out setting on the dishwasher. Little fingers might play with the button without even knowing what they’re doing, so the system is set so that it takes more than toying behavior to be able to change the permanent settings. The Constitution says that someone who is not NBC is not ELIGIBLE to be president, whether or not the people are stupid enough to vote for him. To vote him into office is child’s play. But the settings of the Constitution cannot be changed by that kind of mere simple-majority child’s play. What is embedded in the Constitution is too critical for that.
The system failed. It threw out the distinction between the permanent settings and the stuff that can be altered through an ignorant child’s playing.
And in this particular case, the system had to overlook multiple instances of forgery, perjury, misprision, and extortion. In a nutshell, the whole system is lawless. Just like Eric Holder’s Dept of Injustice is lawless. It all matches. The tree produced the acorn which in turn produced the tree. It’s all the same stock material and ends up with the same result.
We have to deal with ALL that stuff, since ALL of it weakens this country. We need a new President. We need smart voters. We need the rule of law. I want to go for it all. For people like Levin to blow all the rest of this off, as if the rule of law doesn’t matter, is short-sighted. To cut off the “birther” nose to spite his “I’m so cool” face is totally stupid.
Considering that Mark admitted that citizenship is NOT one of his areas of constitutional expertise, you might want to reconsider
Bullseye.
Yeah, I guess we’re just pretty dumb. ;)
“But Vattel didn’t make up this definition out of some great revelation of his own, He took it from the Scriptures which he quotes quite incessantly in his works as well as that of Locke, Grotius, Pufendorf, etc whom all proceeded Vattel in writing on Natural law & International Law of Nations and whom all relied on the Scriptures for definitions of natural citizenry. “
Sorry to disappoint you, but Vattel doesn’t count for squat on who is or is not a natural born citizen. He wasn’t discussing English law at the time, but continental law.
Maybe you find English and US law contrary to God’s revealed ideas of citizenship. Good luck pushing that!
In fact, based on citizenship in heaven, I’d have to guess it is all voluntary...
They would be natural born citizens just as much as Rubio is.
Lol. Well according to the big three Obot/moonbat Central sites, we are stupid and of questionable sanity. [I refer to Thefogbow.com. ObamaConspiracy.org and FactCheck.org] I wish they knew what pride and amusement I take in being mentioned over there. If they ever stop talking about me, I’ll know I’m losing my touch. ;)
Hi, lj. As you work your way through the thread, be sure to note the poster who considers it “rude” to be asked if he is pro-life.
Rude.
It is even ruder, it appears, to ask if he favors RU486.
I can only speak for myself, but I can’t imagine a conservative taking offense at those questions.
Would a liberal consider them rude?
You betcha.
Yes, Congress has addressed this for citizenship purposes. However, according to the State Department's foreign affairs manual, whether that child would be eligible to be President has never been determined by a court of law.
They also state that it is far from certain that citizenship due to a statute is qualification for POTUS either.
I suppose because any definition of the term NBC would actually require a constitutional amendment, not just a statute.
It would be nice if the issue could be legally resolved, so that Rubio would be eligible to run.
WOW, you were right 2x today. Just as YHVH has never forced his heavenly citizenship on anyone, neither has US Law because it goes against the Laws of Nature & of Nature's God as declared in the Declaration of Independence which proclaims man hold the right to choose for himself and the last I checked, a newborn infant just seconds old is not a man with the legal right to consent to anything.
And Madison followed by saying, "...it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other." Place, not citizenship.
It might behoove you actually to go to the congressional archives and read the entire speech by Madison to see what he actually meant before you continue to use cut & paste out of context quotes.
Not a problem. It's in Madison's papers available online here. Or Founders Constitution, located here. Both will take you to the entire speech, which I did, in fact, read. And nowhere in it does Madison contradict the position that I quoted.
But perhaps you'll enlighten us and tell us the in-context parts you're referring to.
From an attention to the facts which have been adduced, and from a consideration of the principles established by the revolution, the conclusion I have drawn is, that Mr. Smith, was on the declaration of independence a citizen of the United States...
This distinction will be illustrated by the doctrine established by the laws of Great Britain, which were the laws of this country before the revolution. The sovereign cannot make a citizen by any act of his own; he can confer denizenship, but this does not make a man either a citizen or subject. In order to make a citizen or subject, it is established, that allegiance shall first be due to the whole nation...
It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony...
I conceive that every person who owed this primary allegiance to the particular community in which he was born retained his right of birth, as the member of a new community; that he was consequently absolved from the secondary allegiance he had owed to the British sovereign: if he were not a minor, he became bound, by his own act, if he was a minor, his consent was involved in the decision of that society to which he belonged by the ties of nature(ties of the parents)...
Mr. Smith being then, at the declaration of independence, a minor, but being a member of that particular society, he became, in my opinion, bound by the decision of the society with respect to the question of independence and change of government; and if afterward he had taken part with the enemies of his country, he would have been guilty of treason against that government to which he owed allegiance, and would have been liable to be prosecuted as a traitor...
So far as we can judge by the laws of Carolina, and the practice and decision of that state, the principles I have adduced are supported; and I must own that I feel myself at liberty to decide, that Mr. Smith was a citizen at the declaration of independence, a citizen at the time of his election, and consequently entitled to a seat in this legislature.
You see, if you had actually studied the controversy of Mr Smith, you would know that his parents died prior to the revolution & while Smith was a minor & thus a family member took him in. The society Madison speaks of saw the greatness in the child, thus they paid to have him educated at the best schools in Europe where he studied & apprenticed under Benjamin Franklin before he came back to the US as an adult, educated & ready to serve his country. CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT!!!
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.