Vattel disagrees.
Posted on 03/20/2016 11:46:56 AM PDT by conservativejoy
“You are correct on that point. But otherwise mistaken.”
It is no wonder you are so badly misled given the way you rely upon absolutely false and absurd sources of disinformation like that one. That source is so full of ridiculously stupid lies, even you should be able to recognize at least a half dozen of them without breaking a sweat.
” Does the HLR, in fact, assert that Cruz is eligible to the presidency or take any position at all on the issue?”
“Harvard Law Review is proud to publish ideas advanced by a wide range of impressive scholars and practitioners. Those ideas are entirely the authors’ own and do not reflect the views of the Harvard Law Review as an institution.”
Okay, we'll leave it at that.
No one is suggesting that there is a third "type" of citizenship. Take that one off of your argument list.
Birthright citizenship is NBC.
That is a non sequitur. Your conclusion does not follow from your previous assertion. Birthright citizenship flowing from nature makes a "natural" citizen, but birthright citizenship flowing from a man made statute does not. The statutory form of citizenship is imminently malleable by the whim of congress, and there is nothing "natural" about it.
There is no argument because there is no legal authority that agrees with you
Which has nothing to do with anything. "Authorities" have been wrong so many times, the wonder is that they ever get anything right. Again, I point to Abortion and "gay" Marriage as examples of "Authorities" being wrong.
and you can quote Vattel until you turn purple but you will continue to be ridiculed mercilessly.
What does being correct have to do with people agreeing with me or not? "People" thought Obama was a good idea.
"People" are often stupid and often wrong, so I don't really pay a lot of attention to what ignorant "people" think about anything.
Is this the best you can do for an argument? You haven't advanced anything intellectually relevant, and i'm beginning to think you can't.
This is an argument that is too often overlooked; the fact that other "interpretations" do not serve the purpose for which Article II was created.
Senator Cruz: 3 or 4 (NY, FL, IL any others?) Birther Fever Swamp: 0, zero, goose egg, airball
What is the "gay marriage" scorecard? So long as we are pointing to our "authorities" as the arbiters of what is true, how about you tell us how correct they are on the issue of "gay marriage" or Abortion?
You see, I think they are completely wrong on those issues. What do you think?
Vattel disagrees.
“I take it, then, that yours is the final word on all matters concerning citizenship — that you know better than any judge or other authority.”
You are being sarcastic without justification, and you take it wrong. As a matter of fact, I do know far more about this subject that the majority of judges, and that is not my opinion. It is the opinion of a number of judges and attorneys-at-law with whom I have debated this issue over the past 52 years. I began my investigation of the Presidential eligibility issue during the 1964 election when I was given an assignment to research and write about the eligibility of Senator Barry Goldwater. By the time George Romney was a candidate in the 1968 election, I was well prepared to argue that he was in fact not an eligible Presidential candidate. Judges and attorneys have complimented me in private upon my depth of knowledge about this subject and related law, even when many of them disagreed with some of my conclusions. So, your sarcasm is inappropriate and ineffective in this case. Nonetheless, my word on the subject has nothing to do with the validity of the information. The information and its inherent validity stand on their own and by themselves.
I invited you to look at your source and discover for yourself the lies used by your source. Those lies are just as obvious as the nose on your face. All you need to do is open your eyes and your brain to the information within the source you cited and compare it to the real world facts found in the legal dictionaries, dictionaries, statutes, and case law preceding the adoption of the Constitution and after the adoption of the Constitution. You so far appear to be determined to automatically disbelieve and dispute any such legal information put before you by the people you choose to disagree with, so I suggested you do your own research instead. The you will only have yourself to disbelieve and argue with when you run across evidence that reveals just how bad of a ridiculous batch of lies your source put forth.
Clue: any person, no matter what their alleged legal expertise is supposed to be, who tries to argue a naturalization law makes a person a natural born citizen is ignorant, a liar, and/or a fool. I have explained why this is so innumerable times on FR, so I will not repeat it again on this occasion, especially since you do not appear to be interested in learning anything which challenges your cherished beliefs. If you should choose to learn more and take it seriously, then you can indicate so by accepting the challenge of identifying one or more of the lies I’m speaking about being located in your cited source.
“Okay, we’ll leave it at that.”
No, we’ll not leave it at that. You are using a fraudulent source that is disseminating a pack of lies for the purpose of deceiving the electorate. Such dishonesty by your source is unacceptable in a polite and just society, and it must be publicly impeached, refuted, and treated with the public condemnation it deserves. For example:
Your source lied when it said:
“”Natural-born citizen” is accepted by law to mean “born as a U.S. citizen,” regardless of place of birth.”
The evidence that statement is a lie is the existence of the Naturalization Act of 1790, Naturalization Act of 17995, Naturalization Act of 1802, and the fact children born abroad with two U.S. citizen parents were born without U.S. natural born citizenship and without U.S. naturalized citizenship; until a new naturalization law after the American Civil War allowed them to become U.S. naturalized citizens only, and not natural born citizens of the U.S. This is an unfortunate truth that utterly refutes what your source had to say.
Very well. Count me among them, then.
Judge in IL threw out the case too. Because of the 100% certainty of this outcome I haven’t been following these stupid lawsuits very closely. Nothing to be concerned about.
The article is not correct though, Trump is still harping on it, while his propagandists continue to make it known just how much he wants Cruz to surrender and be his running mate, I guess P and VP have different qualifications.
Trumpbot consensus: “Who cares? Judges are corrupt”.
So sad that stupid Internet crackpot theories are being rejected in court. :(
“Vattel disagrees.”
Not really. Vattel carefully noted the requirement for the Sovereign’s armies to be exercising actual sovereign jurisdiction within the former foreign territory in which the birth of the child takes place. The difference between then and now is who is exercising sovereign jurisdiction at the place of birth, the sovereign United States or the foreign sovereign. Modern day examples of foreign deployments of the U.S. armed forces typically result in the host or foreign nation retaining its permanent sovereignty over any such territories being occupied by the United States. At the time Vattel wrote his comments that you excerpted, a sovereign’s armies could be expected to invade for the purpose of temporary or permanent conquest, so those pre-20th Century armies often exercised actual sovereign jurisdiction over captured territories where the birth occurred. Following the Kellogg-Briand Treaty or Peace Pact, such conquests were outlawed; so the invading armed forces of the U.S. typically did not exercise sovereign U.S. jurisdiction where their armies occupied enemy or allied territories. Consequently, U.S. jurisdiction required for the occurrence of natural born citizenship became curtailed to the lesser number of locations where actual diplomatic immunity shielded the location from the exercise of foreign jurisdiction.
Recall in 2011 how they *here* used to claim in comments that a single judge would order Obama out of the WH, nullify the 2008 election and all the bills he signed.
All under the phrase ‘the constitution’
The birthers kept trying to judge shop for one who would take it up till one of them got fined for wasting the courts time.
Now you make me curious as to whether you have ever considered what I have recently come to believe is the most compelling argument in favor of Vattel based "natural born citizen".
It is the origin of the word "Citizen." I have looked in four English law dictionaries written prior to 1776, and the word is not defined in any of them.
The word, as used in the context of members of a nation-state, is unknown to English law until much later than 1776. The English meaning of the word at this time was member of a City. "City-zens" as in denizens of a City.
Have you ever gone down this road before?
This entire post is a reply to (or analysis of) the arguments and assertions in the commentary published in the Harvard Law Review which was quoted at length in the Pennsylvania opinion.
There are basically no well-founded arguments in the commentary.
There are some intentionally deceptive ones, however-- like the argument that John Jay would never have proposed a Constitutional provision (he proposed the "natural born" requirement) that would have excluded from the presidency his own children born abroad during his service as ambassador. There is no reasonable explanation for using this argument other than deceptive intent. (Ambassador's kid's were/are natural born under common law, and any competent lawyer writing in good faith on this issue would know it. The authors are not incompetent.)
Well, I did eat a big dinner yesterday. But that has nothing to do with the article, or the fact that it demonstrates Cruz’s ineligibility.
Wrong, wrong, and wrong.
Frankly, anybody who denies the central place of English common law in colonial, and then American, jurisprudence doesn’t deserve a place at the table, because they haven’t done a lick of real research.
Sadly, we’re seeing a lot more of this “Founders hated English common law!!11!!eleventy11!1!” nonsense ever since the Cruzers came to the conclusion that they could use it to rescue the eligibility of their most favouritest presidential candidate evah.
See, the Founders were indeed born when the United States did not exist, and were grandfathered in as NBCs on the basis of their prior jus soli residence in the colonies.
None of which has a single thing to do with Ted Cruz, who was born long after the Revolution, and who was not born on our soil at all, whether as a state or as a colony.
Ah, but therein lies the problem. In your rush to absolve yourself from having to think about concepts which you might find challenging and troublesome, you decided that you're read the first couple of paragraphs, find something to be offended at, and let yourself off the hook.
If you'd done what smart people do, like, say, read the whole article, you'd have found that the concept dates all the way back to feudal England, long before Vattel or whomever else you think originated the term. I'm also assuming that you think (incorrectly) that there is some kind of substantive difference between natural born "citizen" as used in the Constitution and later American jurisprudence, and natural born "subject" as found in Blackstone and other pre-American English jurists.
More like as Wolfgang Pauli noted to a young physicist, "It's not even wrong. "
It starts down a completely wrong path. But for what it's worth, I went back and looked at it and read several pages. It didn't get better.
I'm also assuming that you think (incorrectly) that there is some kind of substantive difference between natural born "citizen" as used in the Constitution and later American jurisprudence, and natural born "subject" as found in Blackstone and other pre-American English jurists.
Let us contemplate this topic for a moment, and see if my thinking is incorrect. Let us first rely on the rules of the English language.
The term of art "Natural Born Citizen" dissected into it's component parts constitute two adjectives and a noun.
Adjectives are modifiers of the Noun. The Noun is the primary object in the sentence. The word "Citizen" is the noun, the terms "natural" and "born" are merely embellishments of it.
In other words, the meaning of the structure is entirely dependent upon this word "Citizen". So let us focus on this word "Citizen." Where did it come from? How was it used in the English language? When did it acquire it's current meaning as we understand it?
I will point out that the word does not exist in any 18th century English law dictionaries prior to 1776. (That I have found so far, and I have found four of them. )
So how about you tell me from whence came this word, and how we came to be using it in the place of the far more common and widely understood word "subject" ?
I'll give you a hint. The word "Citizen" is French, not English.
cynicism and defeatism win the day ...
so back to rehabbing the lodge I go.
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.