Cruz likely eligible to be President

Thank you, Jeff. I will try to keep those facts in mind.

Are you familiar with the Law of Nations concept?

I guess so. I've heard the term and know it's in the Constitution, and I've certainly heard of the book by that name.

He lost it because he didn't fulfill a residency requirement for someone in his category (since abolished, as I understand it). This is one of the cases around the edges I mentioned before, because I've seen cases like his called "automatic naturalization." But if he had fulfilled the residency requirement and retained his citizenship-from-birth, I don't think anyone would have challenged his eligibility for the presidency.

And you do not find it absurd that on the one hand he can be expelled from citizenship, but on the other he can be President of the nation? All contingent upon acts not associated with his birth?

You must believe in quanta superposition on a macroscopic scale. I think I have a cat I'd like to sell you.

Jeff, I will ask you politely, one time. Remove me from your ping list. Thank you.

At your request, I will not ping you to these discussions in the future, unless you reengage in the debate.

I have not been debating Mark Levin, and frankly I think he would come off the worse for it if I were...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Are you taking up comedy now?

It appears that Ann Coulter might in fact agree with you. I may write her, however, to ask whether she does.

As for George Will, no, I don't believe he agrees with you. An argument that illegal aliens are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" is not an argument that legal immigrants aren't. If Will were to make the latter, of course, according to the Wong Supreme Court, he would be wrong. Because the Wong Court was absolutely clear that legal immigrants domiciled here are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They were equally clear that their children are natural born citizens.

I hope you're able to put together that debate with Mark Levin. I'd love to hear it.

In the Same manner that John Bingham disagrees with me. You are simply distorting Madison's point. Madison usage of the word "place" is not a simple geographic boundary. If it were, he would need add nothing to it.

I'm distorting Madison's point?

I'm not the person arguing that "place" doesn't mean "place."

I've heard the term and know it's in the Constitution, and I've certainly heard of the book by that name.

Good. Like I said there are multiple versions by different authors. Personally, I consider Emmerich de Vattel to be the best one since it's the one most used in the Founding era.

James Kent apparently wasn't overly fond of Vattel, but even he admitted:
The most popular, and the most elegant writer on the law of nations, is Vattel, whose method has been greatly admired. He has been cited, for the last half century, more freely than any one of the public jurists; but he is very deficient in philosophical precision.
James Kent , 1826

-----

Vattel's work was titled The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law .

This what Vattel said about natural born citizenship:

§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Book I / CHAP. XIX. - Of Our Native Country, and Several Things That Relate to It

As I'm sure you know, this particular snippit-
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. is repeated in several legal decisions as well.

-----

That's why, in my most honest opinion that there is only one way to acquire natural-born citizenship

You must inherit it from your parents.

And since it's a concept of Natural Law, there is nothing the government can do to change it.

Government can make all the rules they want to 'determine' or 'decide' if someone IS a citizen and put any kind of name on it they like.....but all those citizens can ever be are a type of naturalized citizen.

Those clever old Founders :-)

Responding to what I say, I can't do anything about it.

But if you're responding to someone else there is no reason anyone should forced to scroll though a page and a half of your DREK because you've put them on a everybody-on-the-thread PING list.

I am attempting to have a conversation here and you have both fully proven and admitted in the last week you don’t EVEN CARE about the subject matter.

So do us all a favor and go get your Master's Degree in Jackassery somewhere else, m-kay?

Sorry 'bout that last post - it was supposed to be to Jeff.

I must have had 2 windows open with your name in it!

Whoops!

#388 is for you

And you do not find it absurd that on the one hand he can be expelled from citizenship, but on the other he can be President of the nation?

Sure, it's a little absurd. There are a lot of absurdities in the law, as specific cases test the definitions and limits and create contradictions. It's like QA on a software program: until it gets in the hands of the users, you don't really know where it might break. I note that this particular contradiction seems to have been resolved by later legislation that means someone in Bellei's situation would not be subject to losing their citizenship. I also note that part of the Bellei decision rested on him not being covered by the 14th, since he was born outside the US, so it's not really relevant to the eligibility of people born here.

I take it you think Bellei was not eligible?

You must believe in quanta superposition on a macroscopic scale. I think I have a cat I'd like to sell you.

Oh sure, how do I know there's a cat in that box?

Well, several things about Vattel:

• He says in the Preliminaries to the book that “the Law of Nations is the science which teaches the rights subsisting *between nations or states*, and the obligations correspondent to those rights.” The emphasis is mine, to point out that the law of nations has to do with the interactions between nations, not the rules of what happens within a nation—like who’s eligible to be president.

• When Vattel does discuss internal issues, there’s no reason to think we follow him slavishly. For example, he proposes that “since it is an established custom that the nobility and military men should appear armed, even in time of peace, care should be taken to enforce a rigid observance of the laws which allow the privilege of wearing swords to these two orders of men only.” Obviously, we didn’t adopt that—there’s a lot else in there that most people on this board would find objectionable.

• He didn’t write “natives, or natural-born citizens,” of course, he wrote “les naturels, ou indigenes.” Just because some (but not all) translators later decided that the established English expression “natural-born citizen” was a good way to render “indigenes” doesn’t mean the Framers had that definition in mind.

• “Children” have “parents.” I’ve always thought the insistence that both parents be citizens based on his use of the plural was a really weak argument. If you’re talking about a nation’s children, you’re going to refer to their parents, even if you only mean one parent per child. Even later in that same quote, he says children follow the condition of their fathers—does that mean both fathers have to be citizens for a child to be NBC?

> That’s why, in my most honest opinion that there is only one way to
> acquire natural-born citizenship
> You must inherit it from your parents.

And it would have been so easy to just write that, wouldn’t it? Instead, they used this term that sounds so much like “natural-born subject,” whose definition did *not* require inheritance from parents.

Silly Founders.

Are you taking up comedy now?

Yup. Every time I argue with you.

It appears that Ann Coulter might in fact agree with you. I may write her, however, to ask whether she does.

And you thought you knew everything. Seems to me that you said earlier you had heard everything I had to say on the issue.

As for George Will, no, I don't believe he agrees with you. An argument that illegal aliens are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" is not an argument that legal immigrants aren't. If Will were to make the latter, of course, according to the Wong Supreme Court, he would be wrong. Because the Wong Court was absolutely clear that legal immigrants domiciled here are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They were equally clear that their children are natural born citizens.

I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt regarding the children of people who have come here legally, and who had stated their intention to become citizens. I find pieces of support for this methodology in the historical record. This is why I don't really have any issues with Marco Rubio. It is my understanding that his mother had become an American before his birth, and his Father had started the process. The rest is just a minor technicality at worst.

But what of Barack Obama Sr? Was Barack Obama's father a legal immigrant? Seems to me he was a transitory Alien. Furthermore, if the lies he told to get his Visa were known at the time, he wouldn't have been allowed into the country in the first place. (Lies about Polygamy and lies about Communist Associates.)

I hope you're able to put together that debate with Mark Levin. I'd love to hear it.

Mark Levin has a tactic he uses which prevents him from losing a debate. He doesn't engage in one. He shares this methodology with you.

I'm distorting Madison's point?

I'm not the person arguing that "place" doesn't mean "place."

No, but Madison is. He says so in the rest of what he wrote.

Sure, it's a little absurd. There are a lot of absurdities in the law, as specific cases test the definitions and limits and create contradictions. It's like QA on a software program: until it gets in the hands of the users, you don't really know where it might break.

It's only absurd under your interpretation. It is perfectly reasonable under my interpretation. A "natural citizen" doesn't need an act of congress to make him a citizen, and nothing that he does accidentally, or nothing he fails to do, will change his citizenship status.

I note that this particular contradiction seems to have been resolved by later legislation that means someone in Bellei's situation would not be subject to losing their citizenship.

So an act of Congress created his citizenship problem and another act of Congress fixes his citizenship problem? I would suggest his citizenship is highly dependent upon the whim of congress as opposed to natural law.

I also note that part of the Bellei decision rested on him not being covered by the 14th, since he was born outside the US, so it's not really relevant to the eligibility of people born here.

It is insofar as it demonstrates that there are different levels of solidity to citizenship. Bellei's was not very solid.

I take it you think Bellei was not eligible?

If an act of congress can redefine the meaning of words written in 1787, then none of them mean anything. There is no solid ground in the document.

Oh sure, how do I know there's a cat in that box?

That's part of the fun! It's a feature, not a bug!

The emphasis is mine, to point out that the law of nations has to do with the interactions between nations, not the rules of what happens within a nation—like who’s eligible to be president.

From the first legal treatise written after Ratification:

And because this principle was supposed not to have been expressed with sufficient precision, and certainty, an amendatory article was proposed, adopted, and ratified; whereby it is expressly declared, that, "the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." This article is, indeed, nothing more than an express recognition of the law of nations; for Vattel informs us, "that several sovereign, and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without each in particular ceasing to be a perfect state. They will form together a federal republic: the deliberations in common will offer no violence to the sovereignty of each member, though they may in certain respects put some constraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements."[57]
Of the Unwritten, or Common Law of England; And Its Introduction into, and Authority Within the United American States
George Tucker

-----

He didn’t write “natives, or natural-born citizens,” of course, he wrote “les naturels, ou indigenes.” Just because some (but not all) translators later decided that the established English expression “natural-born citizen” was a good way to render “indigenes” doesn’t mean the Framers had that definition in mind.

A great many of the Founders were fluent in French as all well-educated men were in those days.

As they would need no 'translation', I fail to see the purpose of the comment.

-----

“Children” have “parents.” I’ve always thought the insistence that both parents be citizens based on his use of the plural was a really weak argument.

Really? So how many parents do you think it takes to make a child?

------

And it would have been so easy to just write that, wouldn’t it? Instead, they used this term that sounds so much like “natural-born subject,” whose definition did *not* require inheritance from parents.

Please source the English law in question.

----

Look, I would very much like to have a discussion, but only with someone who wants to take an honest look at the evidence.

Your post seems quite indicative of someone who has already made up their mind.

If this is the case, please do have the courtesy and human decency to tell me so know as I'm sure we could both probably find a more productive use of our time.

Thank you.

• When Vattel does discuss internal issues, there’s no reason to think we follow him slavishly. For example, he proposes that “since it is an established custom that the nobility and military men should appear armed, even in time of peace, care should be taken to enforce a rigid observance of the laws which allow the privilege of wearing swords to these two orders of men only.” Obviously, we didn’t adopt that—there’s a lot else in there that most people on this board would find objectionable.

From Vattel, Book III.

In treating of the right to security (Book II. Chap. IV.), we have shown that nature gives men a right to employ force, when it is necessary for their defence, and for the preservation of their rights.

As referenced here.

"The Second Amendment: The Intent and Its Interpretation by the States and The Supreme Court"

And it would have been so easy to just write that, wouldn’t it? Instead, they used this term that sounds so much like “natural-born subject,” whose definition did *not* require inheritance from parents.

For decades, I have been a pro-Gun activist and for Decades, I had wondered how in the world anyone could fail to understand the meaning of the Second Amendment. I had, for years, fought with morons who kept telling me it meant the National Guard had a right to carry guns. That this interpretation was utterly ridiculous was simply not apparent to many many people.

People used to whine, "Why didn't the founders make it clearer?" To which I always replied, "The meaning was perfectly clear and non controversial in 1789. It needed to be made no clearer. They just never thought people would be so stupid as to interpret it differently."

Finally, the District of Columbia v. Heller decision, and the Chicago v McDonald Decision, Made it clearer to the fools among us what was very clear to everyone in 1789, but even at that, there existed four utter sh*theads on the Supreme Court who should never have been allowed up there. Breyer,Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg. These were the dissenters.

It is as a result of these four, and various other past decisions by various Supreme Courts, that I simply do not regard the Supreme Court's opinion as being proof of anything other than the fact that politics decides what is accepted as true, whether it be true or not.

To answer your question, I believe they thought it was clear enough. After all, at that point in History, Vattel was very popular. It was even quoted in the notes on the convention, and several State Ratifying conventions.

When Vattel does discuss internal issues, there’s no reason to think we follow him slavishly. For example, he proposes that “since it is an established custom that the nobility and military men should appear armed, even in time of peace, care should be taken to enforce a rigid observance of the laws which allow the privilege of wearing swords to these two orders of men only.” Obviously, we didn’t adopt that—there’s a lot else in there that most people on this board would find objectionable.

When Khruschev and the Soviets built the Berlin Wall to keep East German workers from moving to or working in West Germany, he could rely upon Vattel's opinion that one of the Principle Objects of Government is to prevent, by force if necessary, the emigration of workers that the State finds useful:

"Those workmen that are useful ought to be retained in the state; to succeed in retaining them, the public authority has certainly a right to use constraint if necessary. Every citizen owes his personal service to his country; and a mechanic, in particular, who has been reared, educated, in its bosom, cannot lawfully leave it, and carry to a foreign land that industry which he acquired at home, unless his country has no occasion for him, or he cannot there obtain the just fruit of his labor and abilities. Employment must then be procured for him; and if while able to obtain a decent livelihood in his own country, he would without reason abandon it, the state has a right to detain him."
Vattel, The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natiural Law Book 1, Chapter 6, § 74

Fidel Castro, too, agrees with Vattel's view on the right of the State to hold workers captive if it is of benefit to the State.

Vattel devotees, including those who fancy themselves connoisseurs of the various flavors and gradations of citizenship, might themselves get indigestion from some of Vattel's finest delicacies. The Vattel fetish is for genuine crackpots.

Fidel Castro, too, agrees with Vattel's view on the right of the State to hold workers captive if it is of benefit to the State.

Vattel devotees, including those who fancy themselves connoisseurs of the various flavors and gradations of citizenship, might themselves get indigestion from some of Vattel's finest delicacies. The Vattel fetish is for genuine crackpots.

Of course we've never had conscription in this country. And of course we've never had the government to order engineers and scientists to work on various major projects of great interest to our nation. (The Manhattan Project, the Panama Canal, the Hoover Dam, etc.)

You portray what Vattel is saying in bad light because you don't like what he is saying regarding natural born citizenship. You have just created an ad hominem directed at Vattel.

It is axiomatic that the government must hold on to people who have special skills, and not allow them to fall into the hands of our enemies. Our Scientists and Engineers who work in Military weaponry are in this category. They can't just pick up and go whether they like it or not, and if you think this is a crazy idea, you are a fool.

By the way, England did exactly the same thing. During the Industrial revolution, they guarded their mechanical engineers jealously. (These are the people to Whom Vattel is referring.) Fortunately, some of them snuck out and brought their secrets to America, and look how that turned out for England.

Yup. Every time I argue with you.

ba-da-BING!

Don't quit your day job. :-)

I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt regarding the children of people who have come here legally, and who had stated their intention to become citizens. I find pieces of support for this methodology in the historical record. This is why I don't really have any issues with Marco Rubio. It is my understanding that his mother had become an American before his birth, and his Father had started the process. The rest is just a minor technicality at worst.

Really?

Now this is astonishing.

You preach that "natural born citizen" requires two US citizen parents at birth.

And not even YOU believe it.

But what of Barack Obama Sr? Was Barack Obama's father a legal immigrant? Seems to me he was a transitory Alien.

I actually think there's a valid argument that Obama's father was a transitory alien. And if both of Obama's parents had been transitory aliens, I think there might even be grounds for a court case.

I actually doubt the courts would rule, even in that instance, that such a person is not a natural born citizen. But it would be worth a shot.

But since Obama's mother was a US citizen, I don't think there's even a case there. And oddly enough, what I think on these issues seems to be repeatedly exactly what real courts have thought and said. There have been at least half a dozen or so cases in which the question of Obama's natural born citizenship was put before the court, and he was ruled eligible.

Which of course puts me in an uncomfortable situation. It allows people like you to falsely paint me as an "Obot."

In any event, Obama's case is settled. There are MULTIPLE court precedents finding him to be a natural born citizen. There is no way on earth that you or anyone else could possibly overturn that precedent now.

Which makes your labeling me and others who represent the law accurately as "Obots" rather silly, since there's not the slightest need for anyone to make the case in regard to Obama any more. If there ever was.

But Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal... those are the people you stand to harm now.