Posted on 09/29/2011 8:43:31 AM PDT by Politics4US
I think there might be some sort of misunderstanding. Blade accused you of attacking him with an ad-hominem. I opined that it was odd that he knew what an “ad-homnem” was, but didn’t appear to know what argumentum ad populum or argumentum ad verecundiam meant. They are all fallacies used in debates.
I suggested that perhaps he did know of these fallacies, but used them anyways because he hoped the rest of us might not know of them. No disrespect toward you.
The American Legal system is pompous. Judges and lawyers are arrogant, and without any commiserate justification. (They aren’t particularly smart or clever, just learned in “process.”) So many overlook the fact that prior to the creation of the U.S. Constitution, there were no American Laws or Lawyers. Many of our most famous lawyers did not even attend law school, they studied it on their own.
Something I learned years ago that I found to be quite enlightening was the etymology of the word “amateur.” It is derived from the Latin word for love; Amor. It literally means someone who does something for the love of it. In it’s original meaning, amateurs were regarded as of superior talent then professionals, who merely did something because it was a job.
This is why I’m not so particularly impressed with the pronouncements of various legal “experts.” If they are so smart, the system wouldn’t be the god awful mess that it has become. We need the opposite of what these people are selling.
“You seem to be refusing to answer the questions [...]”
Yes, obviously I am denigrating your questions as so blatantly misrepresentative of what the courts actually held that attempting to answer your fantasies would be futile.
If you are unable to figure out whether, as you asked, Twitter has the authority to decide court cases, that’s your own failure. The position I’ve taken is if birthers can’t figure out even that much, well, so much for the birthers.
You, butterdezillion, introduced this question as some kind of indictment of our courts. O.K., if a court actually held that Twitter has the authority to decide court cases, as you suggested/implied, then then I’d at least have to take it seriously enough to answer.
So go for it. You raised the issue. If you cite and quote a U.S. court saying that Twitter has the authority to decide court cases, as you had presented, then I’d be in a tough spot. The advantage I have is that I’ve made a hobby of studying crank theories, and I’m pretty sure I know the court decision that you misrepresenting.
You can't reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into. Some people simply need their delusions as a security blanket.
Thanks for clarifying that it was George Washington. Some less-critical details get lost in the stacks in my mind.
No problem. I forget stuff all the time. When I don't, I forget where I put it! :)
I think it’s safe to say that Vattel was on the minds of the Founding Fathers when they penned the “natural born citizen” phrase in the Constitution.
I believe I recall seeing an article that asserted Thomas Jefferson used Vattel's principles in writing the Declaration of Independence. One piece of evidence we all need to remember is that Jefferson originally wrote the word "Subject", but rubbed it out and replaced it with what at that time was a rare term, "citizen."
When the nation was founded, the concept of "perpetual allegiance" was universal. You were born subject (servant) to a King for your entire life with no alternative to chose another nation. America pioneered the concept of free choice as to your allegiance, and someone who decides that their child should live in another nation till it's maturity has effectively put them on the path to citizenship in another nation. The legislation that I have seen from the founding era indicates that residency is an important part of citizenship, and it would be entirely consistent with the intentions of the founders to regard such a person as having been born as a "natural born citizen" but having forsaken the "owing no other allegiance" requirement as a result of their subsequent decision to remain in a foreign nation. I would rule that they had violated the spirit of the Article, if not the letter of it.
As for Obama, allegedly born in a state which was barely made a state two years prior, (and then only as a result of a deal with Senate Democrats who INSISTED on getting a Democrat voting state in exchange for Republican's Alaska state petition.) With a large population of indigent Hawaiian culture, to a foreign father, and who was probably adopted by another foreign father, taken to live in a foreign nation for years, and grew up with a completely Un-American experience during his formative years, and then who may or may not have used foreign issued credentials for schooling and travel after his age of majority, possessing legitimate claims of citizenship in four different nations, you somehow think HE sneaks in under the bar?
You have a peculiarly low standard for loyalty/allegiance in my opinion.
That makes little sense to me. Or to Madison. Or Rawle. Or Kent. Or others.
Madison is not so much your champion as you suggest. By his poor choice of words you lay claim to him, and thereby totally disregard his larger argument. That Mr. Smith was OF South Carolina, that his inherited lands lay there. (Another argument for Citizenship descending through the father from which inherited lands come.)
As for the others, I haven't read them extensively, but I have seen your quotes. Since the founding, there was an ongoing effort to push British law into American courts. I have little doubt that their misunderstanding of this issue is the result of Americans using so much of British law, but fortunately Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Marshall, knew the correct application of American law regarding citizenship was based on the definition provided by Vattel which he quoted in the Venus case.
It wasn’t a misunderstanding so much as a lack of clarity in my reply. I knew you were not lending any credence to Blade’s baseless smear. I took the opportunity of your comment to underscore the bizarrely misguided nature of Blade’s inane accusation, which I could and should have been clearer about. Sorry about that. :(
I gave you two very prominent examples of Conservative Intellectuals supporting the "birther" argument. They are strangely oblivious to the fact that they ARE supporting the "birther" argument.
Coulter and Will’s arguments do not apply to Rubio, who’s parents were here legally, and even if the change they advocate is adopted, it wouldn’t apply retro-actively.
I believe their point is that it was never different. It has always been the law, people just misunderstood it. It wouldn't be "retro-active", it would have to be simply acknowledged that so many people are regarded as citizens despite what the law says and actually means, and that we will just have to accept the fact that this mistake was made by the legal system for a very long time. (Another example of why I don't put much faith in the "courts" getting things right.)
As for Rubio, in my opinion given the circumstances of his mother and father, and their stated intentions of becoming citizens prior to his birth, they meet the spirit of the Founder's intentions even if they don't quite measure up to the letter of them. I would give him a pass. He obviously possesses the most important characteristics of those which were desired in a Natural born citizen. Raised in the American experience, knowing no other nation as his home, he is as American as apple pie.
Butter, you have been on eligibility threads longer than I have, so I will leave it to you to confirm or not my analysis. Fwiw, here it is.
I’ve had countless back-and-forths w so-called anti-birthers. Most of the time, at some point in the exchange, one of two things happens.
1: It becomes clear I’m talking to a true blue conservative who disagrees w me on this one point. They may think that while Obama lies about everything else, for some inexplicable reason he’s been honest about his nativity story. More likely they believe (and in many cases know) he’s lied his azz off, but they still think it’s a losing issue. Attack and underscore Obama’s horrific, destructive record, and leave his nativity tall tales out of it, is more or less their position.
2: It begins to feel as if I’m arguing w a liberal.
When (2) happens, I have a look at the party’s posting history. If it’s a conservative w an anti-birther ax to grind, that becomes clear w’in a page or two. Interspersed among the anti-birther stuff are an array of full-bodied, red-blooded pro-conservative posts and, most telling of all, a delicious litany of scathing Obama critques. At which point I shrug and acknowledge that this, too, is a fellow conservative/brother-in-arms—just one w whom I happen to have a point of disagreement.
Other times several pp of scanning posts reveals nothing even tertiarily anti-Obama. Mostly all that appears is a regurgitation of the material readily available 24/7 on any of the major Obot-moonbat sites: thefogbow, obamaconspiracy or factcheck.
When that happens, since I rarely have the time or inclination to read any poster’s entire history, I ask the question bluntly: have you ever posted anything critical of Obama?
I must say, in all the time I’ve done this, I’ve never had anybody go as haywire-berserk as BladeBryan. You’d think I asked him if he was the last surviving Nazi war-criminal still at large. He lost his cookies. Why would anybody have such a bizarre, disconnected, exaggerated/out-of-all-sane-proportion, frankly unhinged reaction to such a simple, honest, straight-forward question? He’s been attacking me ever since, which is equally weird. Is it a crime, in his eyes, even to *inquire* if one has ever criticized Obama?
Good googly-moogly, Blade, you’ve done far more to damage yourself than anybody else ever could. You act like being asked if you’ve ever criticized Obama is end-of-the-world Dr. Doom villainous. It’s a simple form of honest, legitimate information gathering. Get over it.
I have a question for you. Are you Pro-life?
If you don’t want me responding to you, because you don’t want me showing everybody how stupid you are (remember quoting the losing Plaintiff’s lawyer as a court decision???)and how bad you are messing up the law and giving false and bad legal advice to conservatives, then you do not need to be talking about me behind my back. Plus, you should learn how to spell. Both my first name and last name are different from hers.
Plus, unlike YOU, I don’t have MEGALOMANIA where I have to pretend to be a lawyer like you do, when the truth is, you can’t even read cases right, and don’t even have a clue what you are talking about!!!
Sooo, you decide, Perry Mason (NOT!!!) whether or not you want me showing you up.
So There!!!
When I first saw the Manson family person’s name, I figured it was a leftist idiot or crazy person.
Time has proven me right!
“Why have all these citations been altered, as proven by screencaps?”
Why? Because the information originally included was incorrect. Are you not familiar with the concept of corrections? Or do you simply disagree that online articles *should* be corrected when errors are brought to the attention of the author? Does every factual correction carry with it the implication of a secret cover-up?
“The larger point being made was that there was no point in addressing the definition of NBC if Obama was born in Kenya so that’s why people were focused on his place of birth rather than on the definition of NBC.”
No, that’s absurd. The argument that NBCs must have two citizen parents would mean that Obama was ineligible no matter WHERE he was born. It would mean that, by his own admissions in his memoir, he could never be President. Birthplace would be totally irrelevant. There’s no point in addressing birthplace if there’s a more basic eligibility requirement he fails on.
What you said above is like obsessing over a Presidential candidate’s birthplace when he’s only 30 years old. If he’s 30, game over. If NBC *really* required two citizen parents, game over. But it doesn’t. And that’s why people didn’t bring it up.
“And to this date we have not seen a genuine Hawaii birth certificate for Obama.”
You’re right. We haven’t seen “a” genuine one. We’ve seen two. Which is two more than we’ve seen from any other sitting President. And they’re “forged” to the same extent that the moon landing photos are forged.
“So we STILL don’t know where he was born or who his parents were’
There’s a difference between knowing and accepting. You know where he was born and who his parents were; you just don’t accept it. Do you know where Joe Biden was born and who his parents were? Based on what? Mitt Romney? Rick Perry? Herman Cain? Sarah Palin? How do you know where *they* were born or who *their* parents were? They haven’t released any birth documentation. Why aren’t you curious what hospital Romney was born at? Or what Perry’s legal first name is? Or who Cain’s parents are?
Sets a very bad precedent. Giving him a pass because he's "nice" opens the door to giving a pass to many, many others who may not be so "nice". Like electing a really good guy who isn't 35 yet. Only that is not as bad, because eventually he'll become 35.
Why? Because the information originally included was incorrect. Are you not familiar with the concept of corrections? Or do you simply disagree that online articles *should* be corrected when errors are brought to the attention of the author? Does every factual correction carry with it the implication of a secret cover-up?
You may call them "corrections", but what they are is a scrubbing of evidence that makes Obama look like a liar by left-wing liberal sycophants in the media. It likewise makes it much more difficult to provide evidence to people like YOU who refuse to believe that the source of information for which all these articles needing correction was OBAMA. It begs the question. How could so many get it wrong unless they were being misled? How does someone like Christ Matthews, connected with every famous democrat in the nation, get Obama's birth place wrong? He also implies in his comment that HILLARY was getting it wrong.
“The larger point being made was that there was no point in addressing the definition of NBC if Obama was born in Kenya so that’s why people were focused on his place of birth rather than on the definition of NBC.”
No, that’s absurd. The argument that NBCs must have two citizen parents would mean that Obama was ineligible no matter WHERE he was born. It would mean that, by his own admissions in his memoir, he could never be President. Birthplace would be totally irrelevant. There’s no point in addressing birthplace if there’s a more basic eligibility requirement he fails on.
What is absurd is your belief that the vast majority of the public has any knowledge of this subject. There is a widespread fallacy among the vast bulk of adults that the only requirement for being an American is to be born here. They also don't have the slightest clue as to the distinction between "natural born citizen" and "citizen. I can't remember how many times i've heard people say "He is a natural born citizen because he was born here!" Your statement assumes knowledge and competency on the part of the public which DOES NOT EXIST. With that in mind, it is easy to see why the ignorant public focuses on the place of birth issue, and produces a slew of commentary, thereby sucking up all the air from any other discussion.
You also ignore the fact that Until he WON the primary, there would be no point in paying any attention to him. To discuss his theoretical legal status before his actual win would be like digging into Dennis Kucinich's (or some other annoying twerp democrat) background now. Nobody gives a rat's @ss till it matters. I will point out that Nobody looked at Geraldine Ferraro's husband's tax returns (thereby discovering they failed to pay all their taxes) until AFTER she was picked as the V.P. candidate by Walter Mondale.
Do you know where Joe Biden was born and who his parents were? Based on what? Mitt Romney? Rick Perry? Herman Cain? Sarah Palin? How do you know where *they* were born or who *their* parents were? They haven’t released any birth documentation. Why aren’t you curious what hospital Romney was born at? Or what Perry’s legal first name is? Or who Cain’s parents are?
Because THEY never led anyone to believe they were born elsewhere. It's really that simple.
Again, tell me how Chris Matthews gets this wrong? (And doesn't even regard his belief in Obama's foreign birth as an eligibility problem?)
It's more than just that. Reading stuff written in the founding era leads me to believe they may have handled it in the same way. Look at these comments from General George Washington for example.
“You are not to enlist any person who is not an American born, unless such person has a wife and family, and is a settled resident of this country.” George Washington, Given at headquarters, at Cambridge, this 10 July, 1775.
“You will therefore send me none but natives, and men of some property, if you have them. I must insist that in making this choice you give no intimation of my preference for natives, as I do not want to create any individual distinction between them and foreigners.”
“The General has great Reason; and is highly displeased, with the Negligence and Inattention of those Officers, who have placed as Centries at the out-posts, Men with whose Character they are not acquainted. He therefore orders, that for the future, no Man shall be appointed to those important Stations, who is not a Native of this Country, or has a Wife, or Family in it, to whom he is known to be attached. This Order is to be consider’d as a standing one and the Officers are to pay obedience to it at their peril.” - 11 Fox, Adj. Gen. of the day. 9
Not conclusive, but indicative. Other quotes showing Washington's disdain for foreigners here.
Another example would be this excerpt from the 1783 version of the Virginia Citizenship act.
and that all persons, other than alien enemies, who shall migrate into this State, and shall before some Court of Record give satisfactory proof by oath (or being Quakers of Menonists by affirmation) that they intend to reside therein, and also take the legal oath, or affirmation, for giving assurance of fidelity to the Commonwealth (which oaths or affirmations the Clerk of the Court shall enter on record, and give a certificate thereof to the person taking the fame, for which he shall receive the fee of one dollar) shall be entitled to all the rights, privileges, and advantages of citizens, except that they shall not be capable of election or appointment to any office, legislative, executive, or judiciary, until an actual residence in the State of two years from the time of taking such oaths or affirmations as aforesaid, nor until the shall have evinced a permanent attachment to the State, by having intermarried with a citizen of this Commonwealth, or a citizen of any other of the United States, or purchased lands to the value of one hundred pounds therein.
My understanding is that Rubio's Father (already a long time resident) had initiated the paperwork prior to Mark's Birth to become a citizen. His mother had already become a citizen prior to his birth. Given that the mother had already become a citizen, and the father had filed to become one, it is evident that the Father intended, and indeed did became a citizen. It is apparent to me that the family met the spirit of the law if not the letter. That his father didn't complete the process before his birth is in my mind a technicality.
You are a tiresome drone, BladeBryan. Of course I know whether Twitter has the authority to decide court cases. It is you who will not answer that question and a couple other easy math cases, such as “Is 20,000 greater than 500?” and “Does the year 1967 come before the year 1978?” These are easy questions; you still won’t answer them. Either poop, or get off the potty.
How many other cases do you know of where “corrections” were only made a couple years after the fact, and only when the historic point in question was likely to disqualify a presidential candidate? How would you know the difference between a “correction” and a falsification of the history? Where would you go to find unmanipulable evidence of what the real story was?
And I might add that I have corrected many, many factually incorrect articles regarding Obama’s eligibility and have yet to find ANY that will issue corrections. The one thing that is common to all these years-old-corrections and years-old-refusals-to-correct is that they all make a mockery of truth in order to cover the putrid stinking behind of this POTUS and his thugs.
And you’re not even listening to what anybody is saying. I don’t know of anybody on the “birther” side who is claiming that there has been a court case that definitely defines NBC. It still has to be interpreted by a court so the more SURE proof of ineligibility would be proof that Obama was not born in the USA.
And Obama has put out 2 forged birth certificates rather than let us see anything genuine. The COLB has a “seal” that doesn’t distort when the page it is supposedly on folds - a phenomenon I have shown on my blog to be impossible. And the HDOH indirectly confirms that what Obama showed publicly (either the COLB or the long-form) is not what they have in their records, by admitting that Obama has not yet waived his privacy rights by publishing the genuine record.
If Herman Cain puts out 2 forgeries and the DOH of his alleged birth state repeatedly breaks laws in order to hide what’s really in his records, I will treat his situation the same way as I treat Obama’s. Same thing with Jindal, Rubio, Romney, etc. In case you hadn’t noticed, that’s what Mark Levin is getting mad at some of us about - that we are not willing to brush off the eligibility ssue when it comes to our “pet” candidate.
In Obama’s case, we are talking about multiple crimes being committed by him and by the people covering for him. Tell me what other alleged President has committed blatant crimes in order to cover up his birth documentation? Unless you can name others, Obama stands alone in this, and that is why his case is being treated differently.
What you’re saying is what I have noticed as well.
To be honest, I kind of wonder if Obama wants us kept busy hassling with trolls instead of dealing with Fast and Furious. I think he’s realizing he’s being found out as the lawless thug he is, and I’m wondering if the communist protests are the beginnings of the violence that both Hoffa and Biden in a single recent weekend were signaling the union and communist thugs to begin.
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.