Posted on 02/21/2012 6:38:28 PM PST by writer33
A person who becomes a citizen, based on the laws of this country,in force at the moment of birth, is a Natural Born Citizen.
Which laws? Are positive laws what make them so?
For purposes of ELIGIBILITY for any office in the United States Government mentioned in the Constitution, there are only two kinds of citizens:
* NOT “natural born” and “naturalized”; but
* “Natural born citizen” (eligible for POTUS and VPOTUS and every other office) and “citizen” (eligible for every office but POTUS and VPOTUS)
If the sheriff can prove 0 was not born in Hawaii, or at least that the birth certificate is fake, then the citizenship of his father does not matter.
Nobody with any authority agrees with you.
As long as he was born in the US he is a citizen through his mother's citizenship. He has that by right and I wouldn't deny that to him or anyone else as long as they qualify. Children of illegal aliens don't qualify in my book. His father was here legally on a student visa which was covered under USC 8 and he never intended to become a naturalized citizen.
If the birth certificate is fake then he is in trouble for fraud. That's going to be very hard to prove without access to the actual original documents and Hawaii doesn't look like it's going to help anybody in clearing that up.
The citizenship of his father is the chink in the armor and it all revolves around that as it shows that he isn't a natural born citizen. He can't be anything but a citizen through the naturalization process because of his "alien" (a legal definition) father and is therefore ineligible. That's why all of the new cases are being argued on that point alone!
And you added me in the “to” list because...???
A person who becomes a citizen, based on the laws of this country,in force at the moment of birth, is a Natural Born Citizen.
Which laws? Are positive laws what make them so?
However, YOUR small group of Birthers wants to redefine the term Natural Born Citizen.
A most interesting choice of words. What do they want to redefine it from?
Nobody with any authority agrees with you.
You must be parched from trying to draw water from that dry well.
YES, “positive law” trumps anything you have tried to come up with.
Madison trumps Vattel.
Congressional legislation trumps Vattel.
Even IF a Court, EVER, agreed with you, if legislation has been enacted, since that Court case, that legislation would trump any such Court ruling.
This is how the system works.
What is to keep you from claiming that “Natural Law” should dictate inheritance or divorce or child custody?
Natural Law and Common Law are seen as archaic, harsh, and very out dated in these areas.
It is absurd to think that Vattel can write a book, which some Founders read, and that, therefore, we should use Vattel’s definitions for every legal term in the Constitution.
The Founders also read, and for the most part FOLLOWED, English Common Law, which supports my view, not yours.
YES, “positive law” trumps anything you have tried to come up with.
Madison trumps Vattel.
Congressional legislation trumps Vattel.
Even IF a Court, EVER, agreed with you, if legislation has been enacted, since that Court case, that legislation would trump any such Court ruling.
This is how the system works.
What is to keep you from claiming that “Natural Law” should dictate inheritance or divorce or child custody?
Natural Law and Common Law are seen as archaic, harsh, and very out dated in these areas.
It is absurd to think that Vattel can write a book, which some Founders read, and that, therefore, we should use Vattel’s definitions for every legal term in the Constitution.
The Founders also read, and for the most part FOLLOWED, English Common Law, which supports my view, not yours.
YES, “positive law” trumps anything you have tried to come up with.
Madison trumps Vattel.
Congressional legislation trumps Vattel.
Even IF a Court, EVER, agreed with you, if legislation has been enacted, since that Court case, that legislation would trump any such Court ruling.
This is how the system works.
What is to keep you from claiming that “Natural Law” should dictate inheritance or divorce or child custody?
Natural Law and Common Law are seen as archaic, harsh, and very out dated in these areas.
It is absurd to think that Vattel can write a book, which some Founders read, and that, therefore, we should use Vattel’s definitions for every legal term in the Constitution.
The Founders also read, and for the most part FOLLOWED, English Common Law, which supports my view, not yours.
YES, “positive law” trumps anything you have tried to come up with.
Madison trumps Vattel.
Congressional legislation trumps Vattel.
Even IF a Court, EVER, agreed with you, if legislation has been enacted, since that Court case, that legislation would trump any such Court ruling.
This is how the system works.
What is to keep you from claiming that “Natural Law” should dictate inheritance or divorce or child custody?
Natural Law and Common Law are seen as archaic, harsh, and very out dated in these areas.
It is absurd to think that Vattel can write a book, which some Founders read, and that, therefore, we should use Vattel’s definitions for every legal term in the Constitution.
The Founders also read, and for the most part FOLLOWED, English Common Law, which supports my view, not yours.
Sorry, that was a cc: to you.
No, he wasn't.
YES, positive law trumps anything you have tried to come up with.
I haven't tried to "come up with" anything. I'm asking you a question based upon a reply you made and you refuse to answer it.
A person who becomes a citizen, based on the laws of this country,in force at the moment of birth, is a Natural Born Citizen.
Which laws? Are positive laws what make them so?
Nothing that you wrote directly answers my question so would you mind doing so.
And here is something that tells me you know all too well what the issue is really about and how it should rightly be viewed.
Congressional legislation trumps Vattel.
See, Congress can only pass legislation that concerns naturalization, not natural born citizenship. You know it and you don't want to admit it as doing so completely disintegrates your whole disingenuous argument.
If the Sheriff is wise, he will confine his investigation to the facts and leave the con-law to the Court.
If he does so, nothing he uncovers will be relevant to any candidate's likely VP choice. If he doesn't he will rightly be written off as a wacko.
Exactly.
Here are some words for you by Madison...
@House of Representatives, Rule of Naturalization 3--4 Feb. 1790
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.