By the way, why do you promote the writings of a statist like Vattel?
I would think that you would be against statism.
I would think that you would be against statism.
I don't believe these people are statists. Apparently, Vattel felt that "natural law" compelled him to conclude that the State has a right to treat its citizens as little more than useful captives. I don't think that a lot of these "birthers" would agree with Vattel on many of these matters.
And, I think it's too easy to attribute something as bizarre as this Vattel fetish to just a willful refusal by "Vattel birther devotees" to accept the outcome of the last two presidential elections. I think there exists a capacity issue here - I think that some of these folks are incapable of accepting the outcome of the last two presidential elections.
The passage of four long years with no hint whatsoever that the Supreme Court agrees with any of their exotic theories about constitutional qualifications and the facts of Obama's birth means nothing to them. They can watch the Chief Justice volunteer to administer the oath of office to Obama for his second term without drawing any inferences about what the Chief Justice might think about their birther theories. They can watch the other justices go out of their way to attend Obama's second inauguration to again legitimize his presidency and continue to believe that those justices are eagerly awaiting an opportunity to seize the power to declare Obama ineligible. If a recently retired justice states that Obama "is clearly a natural born citizen" (as Sandra O'Connor recently did), they learn only that the retired justice is wrong, perhaps because she is ignorant, perhaps because she is corrupt, but in any event, just plain wrong. There is never any occasion for reconsideration, second thoughts or doubts of any kind. There is no capacity for that.