Posted on 04/24/2010 9:18:10 AM PDT by Mr Rogers
“BTW, the original publication year of Solum’s article was 2008.”
I stand corrected regarding Solum. In responding to your invective-laced ad hominem I incorrectly recalled the date of Solum’s article to be earlier. Pryor has the excuse of not being able to internet search Vattel and the founders in 1988, but Solum has no such excuse. I will leave it to others, some of whom I pinged, to comment on Solum (which some of them them have extensively).
Lawyers and law libraries have extensive resources, of course, but they do not necessarily have all of the recorded utterances and private correspondence of the founders indexed for all permutations and combinations of natural, born, citizen, and Vattel by date and edition of Vattel. Those many instances are only now being revealed.
You continue to seek refuge in the logical fallacies of appealing to authority and ad hominem attack. Neither advance your argument.
FYI, I have a neurological disability which causes me to experience random mental confusion from time to time and wide fluctuations on my mental acuity during the day, and so I will freely admit making mistakes to when corrected.
I try my best to double check my posts, but sometimes I will perceive things to be facts which are not. Despite my occasional lapses, I believe I can still ad value to this forum.
My first priority is to getting to the truth from whatever source. I try not to be invested in any narrative regarding Obama and I certainly try not to mock people who disagree with me or who are less knowledgeable in my areas of expertise or who happen to make a mistake from time to time.
Typical birther arrogance - anyone who doesn't agree with them and their idiotic beliefs, aren't real "patriots". How convenient. Who's using the "Alinsky Method" now?
I see you're an immigrant to this country. That's fine. I don't know if you wore the uniform in your home country, but I spent the last 25 years of my life wearing the uniform of the US Navy. You've got another thing coming if you think I'm going allow a Johnny-come-lately to accuse me of being unpatriotic.
How many times have you served in Iraq?
I lived many years for a while in two different Scandinavian countries who had a few wars between them centuries ago!
My oldest daughter went to school in the country I was born, and History lessons were quite important that time!!
Then we moved to the other neighboring country where my youngest daughter went to school. Comparing the two countries history books covering the same wars, was kind like day and night in the difference how the stories were written!!!
“Here's another scholarly work, originally published in the Michigan Law Review - one the the most highly regarded American Law Reviews and written by one of the preeminent authorities on semantic originalism and original intent, Lawerence B Solum. Solum, like Pryor, makes no mention of Vattel with respect to natural-born. Why is that?,”
Originalism and the Natural Born Citizen Clause
ping
Allow me to explain my "invective". It is born from frustration in reading responses that are so completely and utterly absent any understanding of how researched legal opinions are formed. Too many people have dismissed - almost out of hand - scholarly (that is to say researched and peer-reviewed) articles while clinging to almost religiously, the musings of people who have NO SCHOLARLY record, no record of legal practice of any substantive note, and no published record on this subject, other than what they've placed on their blog.
Moreover, where do you think the repositories for "recorded utterances and private correspondence of the founders indexed for all permutations" are located? They are located on college campuses and law libraries all over the country. This is the natural habitat of the law scholar, not the internet blogger. So, to assert that the scholar doesn't have unfettered access to these resources, but the internet blogger does, is patently absurd. But, this is what you assert.
Solum, Pryor and NO SUPREME COURT DECISION ON CITIZENSHIP cites Vattel, in any way. Why is that? The obvious reason is because Vattel is not relevant to the citizenship language in the USC, according to the people who have dedicated their lives to making such connections.
But, two or three inexperience and unremarkable attorneys say otherwise, and these are the people that so many choose to cling to. It's disturbing.
I have never seen Mark Levin or Ann Coulter back down from any fight, about anything or against anyone. But, birthers allege that they have because they place absolutely NO stock in any of these claims. Coulter and Levin BOTH have practical experience as constitutional attorneys -that is to say that they have both made a living at arguing constitutional law. And, both are keenly aware that Obama was born to a parent who WAS NOT a citizen, but both Coulter and Levin agree that Obama is ELIGIBLE to be President. How about that?
The Federalist Society, which is the premiere legal organization for semantic originalism and original intent, in the country, has NOT made a single comment about any alleged defect in Obama's eligibility. Are they all in on the grand conspiracy? Are they all more concerned with their acceptance in the liberal community, than they are in conservative circles? Are they all part of the Alinsky conspiracy?
I am sorry to hear about your medical condition. I will temper my remarks to you in the future and I will pray for your recovery.
“between native-born and naturalized citizens in connection with foreign residence are drawn in the Constitution itself. Only a native-born may become President, “
Of those two, yes the native born could be president.
(If they were also Natural Born)
First, I usually don't padding my own back for my accomplishment or brag about them. I have sworn an Oath to my "new" Constitution in front of Senator Bill Nelson, which is very important to me as law of the land, after 3-1/2 years of grueling paperwork for the legal application and interviews!
Second I spent three years in the Danish forces, the Navy, the Army and also in the Air-force. After that I was stationed four years in Greenland on different radio/weather stations. One year after building the worlds northernmost Radio Station "NORD" ever, approx 400 miles from the North Pole. 1-1/2 year at Dundas Radio @ the U.S Thule Airbase. And two other assignments at Holsteinsborg and Prins Christian Sund radio stations!!
To top it off I then spent some 30+ years in the Danish and Swedish Merchant Marine seen most of the world and dealt personally with the legal authorities in the respective countries, but never been in Hawaii or the southern part of West South America, or near the South Pole. I have now been here 27 years and love this country and my "new" family. I'm sorry, English is only my third language!!!
So, Old Deck, as a "Johny-come late" are we comparing oranges to apples, or you still feel obligated to belittle other Freeper individuals here the same way Chuck Gibson vs. Palin???
I understand that. I have had that statute in my website for 2 years.
There’s another one out there, and I’m kicking my ass I can’t find it.
Cheers . . .
If I go back and look in my old Seaman's Book, I would say that I have been Iraq & Iran approx a dozen times plus Kuwait, Bahrain and other "Gulf" countries similar times!!!
"It was "student note" written by a law student"
It was a scholarly work published in the Yale Law Journal. If you weren't an uneducated rube, you might have figured that one out on your own, smart-ass. Again, for the intellectually challenged, here's the article... Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty, 97 Yale L.J. 881 (1988).
----------------------------
For starters, have a look at the document name: "pryor_note.pdf" Follow that with doing a search in her NOTE, for the term NOTE. You'll see that SHE call's this brilliant piece of "scholarly work" a NOTE.
Not enough for you? Try this on for size then, you ignoramus you...
"Twenty years ago, I examined this question in my student note for the “Yale Law Journal,”"Written by none other than you vaunted "blue chipper" Jill A. Pryor herself on Tuesday, April 08, 2008 in an article titled McCain bid revives 'natural' question
It was a STUDENT NOTE!
Schneider v. Rusk found that native born had the "same rights of citizenship" as Natural Born. Right? Right. Guess what, Naturalized citizens HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS OF "citizenship" AS WELL! Your case there, ANTI-BIRTHER BOY, did NOT say that native citizens are eligible to be POTUS. Now, did they?
Your so blinded by the copious amounts of Barry Kool-Aid you've ingested, that you didn't even read your own quote from the case: "The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the "natural born" citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1. "
Who's the burger flipper here? Stunning!
STUDENT NOTE, from 1988. LMAO! Funny, but not.
You have no idea what a complete imbecile you are, which is profoundly entertaining. If you hadn't received your education from the government, you might know that ALL student articles found in the Yale Law Review are - by tradition - described as "notes". If you are PUBLISHED in a law review, you have PUBLISHED - by definition - a scholarly work.
But, since you've plainly never read a law review in your life, much less been published, your ignorance is excusable, your unfounded arrogance is not. Stick to TVGuide, it's clearly more your speed.
Why are you then trying to keep your beloved "leader" in office?
I mentioned that you are a FINO??
- And your above wordings here looks to me quite like a real threat, is it???
No they don't, moron. Naturalized citizens cannot be President.
I notice plent of after-birthers are trotting out their 25 yrs in the military (of course, no verification, just their say-so) as proof that their lies are truth; corollary is the assumption that anyone without a career in the military knows nothing.
I call it “clutching at straws”.
Today’s name calling is: imbeciles, birthers, and it’s done in the classic Charles Gibson-style!!!
Your a funny old man.
'"This Note argues that the natural-born citizen clause can only be properly understood if we appreciate the interplay of that clause with the naturalization powers clause of article 1,10 as modified by section one of the Fourteenth Amendment""
Why is it capitalized? Because it is a proper name, that is given to ANY scholarly work published by Yale Law students that are recognized for publication in the Journal. It is a Student Note, not a student note.
Your post impugned the legitimacy and relevance of Pyror's essay, implying that it was analogous to a student homework assignment. It isn't. It is a recognized article that she, like any published attorney or academic, may add to her CV, which parenthetically, she has.
But again, since you haven't the first idea about legal opinion, legal research or academic recognition, you're clueless and your criticism of Pryor's previous works underscores you lack of capacity and explains why you're fascinated by the musings of other unremarkable rubes.
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.