Posted on 07/18/2012 9:07:28 AM PDT by Perdogg
U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio is the overwhelming choice for the Republican vice presidential pick in a nationwide survey of Tea Party Express supporters.
(Excerpt) Read more at tampabay.com ...
No, you're bizarre because you don't recognize the facts. What I have written about is consistent with US law and what has been recognized as natural law.
U.S. law should always reflect our best understanding of natural law. That is why women are currently seen to have the natural right to vote - women voting is in no way unnatural - they have the natural right to be free and to participate in representative government.
They have right by man who made an Amendment. That's called artificial as in being made. Funny (not really) that which you say is a "natural" right was not recognized for 133 years after the US Constitution was adopted, or in English common law until 1918 that OBots and liberals love to talk about.
So Dream, you going to vote for Obama in November?
Hey CON CON, you quoting that idiotic Ankeny Indiana court ruling? LoL.
I notice that you liberals always avoid the threads of Obama being a total fraud, but always glum on these NBC type threads to BS the facts.
That you think women voting is unnatural speaks volumes.
Women have a natural law right to equality under the law.
Do you think people have a natural law right to hold other people in slavery? Is it the natural state of humanity to be held in slavery?
This thread and comments is perfect example of the level of stupidity that has now swamped FR. You either believe in the US Constitution or you don’t. If you don’t then pack up and leave this great country.
We all have a responsibility to read and understand the US Constitution and it is absolutely clear if you take 10 minutes to actually read the Constitution you will Rubio is definitely NOT NBC nor is Jindal.
But the selection of either of them is the perfect example of how the GOP has been flooded with traitors as well.
Teddy Roosevelt set on this path about 100 years ago when the Bull Moose party failed...the progressive party was launched and both parties were infected with them with the absolute stated goal in 100 years the American people will really have no choice, no matter which party they will get a f’ing progressive.
Anybody but Obama but I cannot in good conscience support any ticket that is going to flagrantly disregard the Constitution just like the Democrats did.
Aren’t conservatives the ones that are supposed have principles and ethics?
Or is that just a “positive law” instead of a “natural law” because it is recognized in our 2nd Amendment?
Was that a law given to them by men who made an Amendment, or is it a recognition of a natural law right that always existed and was given by God?
No, I'm quoting John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment.
What has always spoke volumes has been your liberal mindset.
Anyone who has looked or knows of your posting history would see that.
A case in point of your liberal mindset, Now, I suppose I believe in human slavery? The machinations and twists and turns of your liberal mind.
Is it the natural state of humanity to be held in slavery?
So again, are you going to vote for Obama as president as you did in 2008?
“U.S. law is consistent - one is either born a citizen or naturalized as a citizen.’
You are correct.
As far a the subject vrs citizen debate, we must realize that while the Founders used British Common Law (unwritten law...traditonal law) they did not creat a carbon copy of British government/monarchy. The Founders went far afield and borrowed ideas from many of the then popular jurists and political theorists of the 18th century. One cannot just look at traditional British Law at say Ah Ha! There are great divides between our Republic and the British Monarchy of the time.
One fundamental difference is that of the relationships between a subject and a goverment and a citizen and a government.
The Government (The Crown) claims all born in it’s juristruction to be “subjects.” They are responsible to the government.
In the Founder’s Republic, the Government is responsible to it’s citizens, who may be either born or naturalized (citizens by application and acceptance.) Like I said a fundalmental diffference.....
The term NBS, and it’s common law meaning, while similiar in wording has no resemblence in meaning to the Founder’s intent in their usage of the centuries old term NBC and it’s modern 18th century definition as articulated in the legal tomes of the day.
My posting history is entirely conservative.
The law doesn't give rights - women were not “given” legal equality via laws passed by men - their natural law right to equality was FINALLY recognized - a right given by God.
It seems you think the law gives rights via man made largess, rather than recognizing rights that have always existed.
That you don't understand this means you are not now and never were a conservative - just a reactionary blowhard.
You are also wrong and increasingly irrelevant.
Don't go away mad - just go away.
You are CON CON? LoL.
Well, I see you forget something:
John Bingham, the “father of the 14th Amendment also said this:
"All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)) "
And John Bingham said this during the passing of the 1866 Civil Rights Act.
“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866)) "
“Copies of which were in the library, in French AND English, where the constitution was written.”
Don’t forget that many of the Founder’s could both speak and write in French, so a translation was only needed by a few......
“de Vattel is not the constitution.”
His writings were before the US Consitution and nation was formed, and were in French.
Who here has read them in French, including context, and can even explain what he was writing about?
When he used the oft cited description for NBC, he was simply stating that was the definition for his native Switzerland, and then said other countries followed different practices.
Nothing more.
I'm not going anywhere. And suuure you voted for Palin. Your mind is not consistent with conservatism.
That you don't understand this means you are not now and never were a conservative - just a reactionary blowhard.
You like to put that to a vote on FR between who is the lib here? LoL.
I don't understand? Oh I understand completely. I under John Bingham who I quoted above.
“All of that being true, they are still not natural born citizens of the United States, as their parents were not citizens at the time of their birth.”
In which article or amendment of the Constitution will that be specifically found?
"Under the treaty, and in harmony with American doctrine, it is clear that Steinkauler the father abandoned his naturalization in America and became a German subject (his son being yet a minor), and that by virtue of German laws the son acquired German nationality. It is equally clear that the son, by birth, has American nationality, and hence he has two nationalities, one natural, the other acquired. .... Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of 21, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States..... I am of opinion that when he reaches the age of 21 years he can then elect whether he will return and take the nationality of his birth, with its duties and privileges, or retain the nationality acquired by the act of his father."
How about William Rawle, who was U.S. Attorney for Pennsylvania starting in 1791 (is that close enough to 1789 for you?):
"The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. ... [He] who was subsequently born the citizen of a State, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. .... Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that ... no person is eligible to the office of President unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us."
And, of course, you ignore Lynch v. Clarke, which, though not a Federal court decision, is of course the decision closest in time to Ratification (and thus closest in time to the framers' understanding of the clause):
"Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen"
The point, of course, is that you birthers are simply wrong when you say that there is no evidence that the NBC clause does not require two citizen parents.
Andrew Jackson served as the 7th President of the U.S. He was born in 1767. His parents immigrated from Ireland in 1765. Given your interpretation of “Natural Born Citizen”, was he eligible to be President?
So is our right to keep and bear arms a natural law or a “positive law” because it is in an Amendment ‘written by men’?
Do you think rights are given by men, or is it the duty of men to base laws upon their best understanding of natural law to recognize rights given by God?
Is slavery consistent with the natural law? You apparently think natural law dictates that women be kept in a legally subservient position. I mean if men “give” them the right to vote and next thing you know they might run for Vice President!
“It does not say the last fourteen yrs consecutive either which would have made Jefferson ineligible in 1800.”
Jefferson was grandfathered in.....see the exception in Article II
I have always wondered about the 14 year residence requirement. Could it mean that the Founders intended that a future President have spent his entire adult life in the US? 21 years old (adult) + 14 years in residence = 35 years old the minimun age to be President.....HMMMMM
If you were 55 years would you need to have lived in the US since age 21 a total of 34 years???? Maybe the Founders weren’t keen on providing charts???? All in all the 14 year requirement is odd.....
Ummmm CON CON. I've seen it all...covered just about everything.
When young Stienkauler was born, his father was a US citizen and his father also renounced his German citizenship when he was naturalized a US citizen. Young Stienkuhler was born in the United States. Combine the two and that makes him an NBC.
It is the same as Ms Elg, that Supreme Court (Elg v. Perkins, 1939) said she was an natural born citizen because her parents were US Citizens who renounced their Swedish citizenship, before they gave up their US Citizenship. Elg at the time was born to 2 US citizen parent and born in the United States.
The point, of course, is that you birthers are simply wrong when you say that there is no evidence that the NBC clause does not require two citizen parents.
No I'm correct as usual. :-)
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.