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 ...
It is positive law for sure. Do you think it is a natural law? If so, cite source. I'd like to see.
Is slavery consistent with the natural law?
No, it's not part of natural law village liberal. It has been part of man-made laws.
You apparently think natural law dictates that women be kept in a legally subservient position.
I never said anything of the kind.
But you birthers keep saying that NBC means undivided loyalty. How can that be, if "he has two nationalities"?
And what about Lynch v. Clarke?
Well did young Stienkualer renounce his US citizenship like daddy? I don't think so. There is a cut off point, and he met it according to the US Supreme Court.
It's like when you libs and OBots love to say, "What if" Castro made everyone in the United States a citizen of Cuba by law? We would all have duel nationalities! An absurdity.
The obvious answer to that question is did we take Cuban oath allegiance? The obvious answer is NO.
And what about Lynch v. Clarke?
What about Bingham's quotes from the Congressional Record that I posted to you?
Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.”
John Adams:
I like that quote.
There seems to be a conflict between the two Bingham quotes - the one I posted suggests that parents are irrelevant, the one you posted suggests the opposite.
In any event, I've never said there is no evidence suggesting that the citizenship of the parents matters. You are the one who seems to think that anyone who disagrees with your view of the NBC clause is a liberal 0bot.
If so your view of natural law is at odds with our founders.
They thought we had a natural right to keep and bear arms that the 2nd Amendment recognized, but did not bestow.
Similarly women have a natural right to equality under the law, it was not a law passed by men that gave them that right, the right has always existed and was finally recognized and put into effect.
“Rubio was born a citizen of these United States according to U.S. law, which should always reflect our best understanding of natural law.”
If “born on the soil” is NOT a criteria for natural born citizenship (as Congress declared in Senate Resolution 511 for McCain), Rubio was ALSO born as a “natural born” citizen of Cuba, since both his parents were still Cuban citizens when he was born. If what I have read is correct, Rubio was born in ‘71 and his parents were naturalized in the US in ‘75.
If the whole natural born citizenship discussion revolves around Vattel, he also said that citizenship follows the father - making Rubio a Cuban citizen, Jindal an Indian citizen and Obama a British Subject, and, at best, dual-citizens in the US.
Since the whole purpose of putting the natural born citizen phrase in the Constitution was to ensure the President only had ties to the US to avoid foreign entanglements (intrigue), how could Rubio be a natural born citizen of the US and at the same time be a natural born citizen of Cuba and not violate this precept of the Constitution?
He can’t. If he’s a natural born citizen of Cuba he can’t be a natural born citizen of the US. Rubio is, at best, a citizen under the 14th amendment. I say, at best, because, strictly speaking, as he was born to Cuban citizens he was not born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US, according to Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. He was born a Cuban citizen in the US subject to the jurisdiction of Cuba.
Now, in fairness, I don’t know whether the Rubios were here when Rubio was born, as refugees or as green card holders. If green card holders, Rubio may have been born subject to the jurisdiction of the US and therefore a dual-citizen since his parents were still legally Cuban citizens. I just don’t know the details of his parent’s immigration status at the time of Rubio’s birth.
oops, make that Samuel Adams not John Adams. My mistake.
The founders thought our Revolution itself was based upon natural law, not positive law, that Americans were seeking “the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them”.
The Declaration didn’t “give” Americans the right to our revolution against England - it recognized a right that was always there and was bestowed by God.
They have a great propensity to gravitate to these arguments like the effects of gravity on a neutron star.
Many have been zotted for the liberals that that they are.
Off the top of my head the zotted - Non sequitur, Parsifal, Michael Michael, James777, LorenC, Curiosity, MilspecRob, and I'd say well over a hundred more liberal trolls have been zots who have click on these threads over the last 4 years.
“The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction” — St. George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in Blackstone Commentaries, 1803
“Who are natural born citizens but those born within the Republic?”
“You start off semi~OK, but.....”Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth—natural born citizens.”
......then go to heck in a hurry! (what’s race got to do with anything???....and what about yellow, red, and brown skin?) Citizen at birth does not always equal Natural Born Citizen. It’s not a matter of law, the Founders did not coin the term, it’s a matter of language. The Founders used a term in common 18th century political lexicon.....
Question??? If all born citizens are “natural born citizens” why even use that term? Why use the word “Natural?” Why not just say born citizens? I think you are missing something here....and it looks like a very large pink elephant sitting in the middle of the parlor.
Don’t you find it curious that a book by Vittel, that is documented to have been in the Founders possession, uses and defines that exact term, “Natural Born Citizen,” and the author gives a rational explaination why they, the NBCs, those “born in a country to citizen parents,” are the very foundation of any society?
Explain how the Founders could think it unnecessary for the President of the new nation they were forming,to be a NBC, a term that they read in “Natural Law...The Law of Nations” and the exact term they used in writting Article II’s eligibility requirements? If the Founders definition of NBC was different than Vittel’s, why didn’t they define it in the text of Art II to avoid confussion to the common definition of the term?
Ponder this.... “All natural born citizens are born citizens, but not all born citizens are natural born citizens.......” Comment?
The Constitution is not a dictionary of terms.
Where does it define “letters of marque”?
I start off OK? I was quoting John Bingham.
No, I said it was at least positive law as in the Second Amendment.
Natural Born of children born of citizen parents has been acknowledge as natural law going back a long time to the days of Justinian. The contemporary legal scholars Vattel and Blackstone of 18th century wrote about it and agreed that citizen parents is the bases of being natural born, and they were much read by the Founding Father's of the US Constitution.
Similarly women have a natural right to equality under the law, it was not a law passed by men that gave them that right, the right has always existed and was finally recognized and put into effect.
Equality now to have the right to vote. They have a right by man made law as I posted above. You show me where that natural law was understood by the classical scholars of natural law said it was natural law for women to have a right to vote? Like it or not this world is of patriarchal societies throughout time where the families and women have followed their husbands and fathers. It still is despite liberals trying to change nature.
In the Supreme Court opinion 1874 Minor v. Happersett, it was held that the women and Virginia Minor did not have the right to vote. It was not until the 19th Amendment passed by man made by man.
Vattel's Law of Nations was at the foremost and the contemporary thinking of the time for the Founding Fathers of the Constitution.
Emerich deVattel speaks of the Laws of England in The Law of Nations; Section 215 Of the children of citizens born in a foreign country:
"In England however, being born in country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.
It is asked, whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws [artificial, man made] have decided this question in several countries, and it is necessary to follow their regulations.
By the law of nature alone, children follow the conditions of their father, and enter into all their rights(section 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot of itself furnith any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him...."
To reiterate, the Natural Born Citizen clause is about natural law and has nothing to do with English Common law.
You said “it is positive law for sure”. Although I can see why you now feel the need to lie about it. Your understanding of natural law is lacking.
Really? Only until a few years ago?
Then why did Thomas Paine write in chapter 4 of The Rights Of Man in 1791 that "natural born citizen" meant not a "foreigner" or "half a foreigner?" Why did he write that a "foreigner" or "half a foreigner" did not have a "full natural or political connection with the country?"
It sounds like the understanding went all the way back to the ratification of the Constitution.
-PJ
Your understanding of natural law is lacking.
No, It's well above the liberal mindset that you have. Your understanding of the NBC clause is totally lacking.
So positive law is, in this case and others, a recognition of natural law. Your ignorance of the natural right to arms notwithstanding, the existence of a positive law is meant to reflect an understanding of natural law. It is not a case where it is one or the other. The right always existed. The law recognizing it had to be written.
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.