.
Also, notice the ORDER of the requirements for "Natural born subject." PARENTS come first in the list! Also, Double allegiance is NOT TOLERATED!
Posted on 11/30/2011 4:54:22 AM PST by Natufian
The Constitution sets out three eligibility requirements to be President: one must be 35 years of age, a "resident within the United States" for 14 years, and a "natural born Citizen"
(Excerpt) Read more at scribd.com ...
Ms: Rogers: “No one gives a fuck about Vattel
Journals of the Continental Congress
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 1785.
The first Question is settled by Vattel in the following Paragraph
Ms Rogers: “no one gives a fuck about Vattel.”
This little tidbit will cast no doubt our Ms Rogers is a fool and a shill.
“Dr. Franklin in the autumn of 1775, by sending him copies of Vattel, edited and annotated by himself; a most timely gift, which was pounced upon by studious members of Congress, groping their way without the light of precedents.
“pounced upon by the studious members of Congress”
The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States, Volume 1
This needs repeating..
Vattel was pounced upon by the studious members of Congress.
This is the Continental Congress..the Revolutionary Congress.
The Congress of Jefferson, Franklin, Jay, Washington, John Adams, Dickinson, Otis, Hamilton, Madison, Samuel Adams, Livingston, Thomas McKean, Patrick Henry, John Rutledge, Stephen Crane, Benjamin Harrison and others..
Ms Rogers...we pity you.
In addition to all of the above I would like to include The College of William and Mary
The College has been called “the Alma Mater of a Nation” because of its close ties to America’s founding fathers. A 17-year-old George Washington received his surveyor's license through the College and would return as its first American chancellor. Thomas Jefferson received his undergraduate education here, as did presidents John Tyler and James Monroe.
I guess you when say "no one" you didn't mean all these other people....
Interesting to read some of the commentary on Vattel in that document:
"Vattel's definition of a Nation imputes Nationality to a Band of Robbers, a Crew of Pirates, a Caravan of Merchants, or the Crew of a Merchant Ship."
"Vattel confuses his reader by predicating Sovereignty sometimes of the Ruler, and sometimes of the Body Politic itself whose creature the Ruler is..."
"Vattel's idea of the Balance of Trade is exploded as absurd."
"Vattel states this vaguely because he starts wrong."
"Here again Vattel inculcates a loose morality not worthy of him."
It looks like people might have been interested in what Vattel had to say, but that doesn't mean they simply accepted all of it.
“How do you erase all these men and documents, and call this a ‘New Theory’ ?”
Can you quote me saying it is a “New Theory”? I wrote that it was settled long ago and “It may have been in doubt before the 14’th Amendment and its interpretation in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark”. That makes it an old theory, one that lost.
You say you remember what your teacher said in fifth grade like it was yesterday, but you can’t remember what I said even when it literally was yesterday.
“How do you erase all these men and documents, and call this a ‘New Theory’ ?”
Can you quote me saying it is a “New Theory”? I wrote that it was settled long ago and “It may have been in doubt before the 14’th Amendment and its interpretation in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark”. That makes it an old theory, one that lost.
You say you remember what your teacher said in fifth grade like it was yesterday, but you mis-remember what I said even when it literally was yesterday.
A man selling out the constitution by knowingly producing a false document, and getting paid to do so.
Those “Frankenstein” quotes are way to much.
Triple wrote: “A man selling out the constitution by knowingly producing a false document, and getting paid to do so.”
When you say that the document is false, that’s you disagreeing. When you say “knowingly”, that’s you bearing false witness.
Hahahaha
Hahahaha
Permit me to join in:
Hahahaha.
Yes, I learned about the natural born citizen requirement in fourth grade, in 1957. Look it up.
Hahahaha.
As of yet, no one has been able to produce a single civics textbook that supports your claim.
Every civics text produced so far supports the ‘born in the US’ argument with no mention of parentage.
Goto page 604
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(dc00123)):#N06360604-01
I sent him both those links previously. :)
.
Also, notice the ORDER of the requirements for "Natural born subject." PARENTS come first in the list! Also, Double allegiance is NOT TOLERATED!
“What is it they keep saying about that English Translation of Droit Des Gens?”
What we say is that the phrase NBC doesn’t appear in any translation of Vattel until 1797, 10 years after the Constitution.
And it is well established that natural born subject included those born of alien parents, unless the parents were ambassadors or an invading army.
What we say is that the phrase NBC doesn’t appear in any translation of Vattel until 1797, 10 years after the Constitution.
I guess the irony that in 1764 James Otis describes the book "Droit des Gens", in English as "M. De Vattel's Law of nature and nations" escapes you.
Does it not occur to you that if they could translate the title, they could translate the interior as well?
Yes, dimwit, we all KNOW there were translations prior to 1797. None of those translations used NBC. Since it was not translated thus until 10 years AFTER the Constitution was written, and since there is no indication his ideas on citizenship had any impact on US law, Vattel could not have been the source of the phrase NBC.
You either ignorant, forgot, or conveniently do not wish to remember, that there is an example of the phrase translated into English prior to the Constitutional convention, in the research thread. I've taken the trouble to locate the example for you in the Congressional record of 1781.
Now what were you saying about nobody translated it that way until ten years after the Constitution was written?
Note also, this was the translation read by the ENTIRE CONGRESS in 1781. No doubt they became familiar with the term being translated in this manner. :)
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.