Apparently not everyone got the memo. Even so, he argued Jus Sanguinus in his speech on the house floor.
You wanted a Founder, I gave you the Father of the Constitution - surely the best expert on what the Constitution meant to say of all of the Founders. And no, he didn't argue Jus Sanguinus. He argued Jus Soli. :
"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.
"JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, you're begging the question. I mean, your question assumes that it is up to the judge to find THE correct answer. And I deny that. I think it is up to the judge to say what the Constitution provided, even if what it provided is not the best answer, even if you think it should be amended. If that's what it says, that's what it says.
The fallacy in your theory is that it causes judicial decisions to turn on Democracy rather than truth.
No fallacy, and not my theory - this comes straight from Justice Scalia. His point (and I agree) is that you can't use court cases to change the law. You want the law or Constitution changed? Fine, get the legislature to do it. We hate judges legislating from the bench when the libs do it, are you now suggesting good conservatives like Scalia should legislate from the bench?
Anyway, everything is tied to everything else, so this objection to something being "off topic" is citing an illusory boundary in my opinion.
So it's ok for me to bring Kelo v New London into every "natural born" thread, and keep demanding you comment on it every few posts? And if you don't use the exact language I want, I can accuse you of being a property grabbing commie?
"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.
Your refutation would work better if you stopped repeating that sound bite and found further support for your argument elsewhere in his speech. Why would you think repeating something like a mantra would be persuasive? In any case, since you are repeating your soundbite, i'll repeat my response to it. Mr. Madison's very next words are:
" Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony."
A Jus Sanguinus argument for citizenship. Were Madison correct about "place", his speech would have ended with "it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other." The fact that he proceeded to "investigate" indicates that not even he believed "place" settled the issue. He goes on to explain that Mr. Smith was part of the "community" of South Carolina, and when that body gave up allegiance to Britain, Mr. Smith was bound by his relationship to the community to do the same. What community was Obama part of? Well, for much of his formative years, Indonesia. Then for awhile, Hawaii, (which given it's racial hatred for whites, is not exactly optimal for instilling American Values) then eventually New York and Chicago where he pursued relationships with the most hateful anti-American terrorist type organizations which were available at that time. Obama obviously had no loyalty to his American "community."
This more or less completely violates James Madison's further articulated principle regarding ties to his community.
No fallacy, and not my theory - this comes straight from Justice Scalia. His point (and I agree) is that you can't use court cases to change the law. You want the law or Constitution changed? Fine, get the legislature to do it. We hate judges legislating from the bench when the libs do it, are you now suggesting good conservatives like Scalia should legislate from the bench?
No, they should undo legislating from the bench, such as has occurred in several cases; Wong Kim Ark being the most obvious in this discussion. Roe v Wade and Kelo being other examples.
So it's ok for me to bring Kelo v New London into every "natural born" thread, and keep demanding you comment on it every few posts? And if you don't use the exact language I want, I can accuse you of being a property grabbing commie?
By all means bring Kelo v New London into the discussion. It supports my point perfectly. It is an obvious violation of the 5th amendment regarding basic property rights. It is just one more evil and wrong decision by the Supreme court. Do you agree or not?