Replies

So, you can't provide any evidence from the US Constitution, Laws passed by Congress or Rulings by the Supreme Court, right?

Maybe a better approach than stating emphatically and declaratively that someone is not eligible based on YOUR interpretation of supporting documents and the thought processes of the Founders, instead of what they chose to write down in the Constitution, might be to state that it is something that needs to be clarified by Congress and the Supreme Court.

But let's be clear, according to US Law and the US Constitution, as of today, Ted Cruz is eligible to be POTUS.

Let's also be clear that according to the documentation left behind by the legal experts of the early United States, "natural born citizen" absolutely DOES NOT require both birth on US soil and citizen parents. It only requires that a person be BORN A CITIZEN, which is exactly what Ted Cruz was.

This was explicitly stated by James Bayard in his Exposition of the Constitution, and that exposition was approved by the legal experts of his day. It was also used to teach the Constitution in our colleges and seminaries.

Here's the basic problem with birthers. This is the fundamental fallacy.

They start not by going and reading history, law and the Founding Fathers and early legal experts, with anything like an open mind.

They start with the conclusion. Then they go looking to "prove" it.

Or, at the very least, they start with a THEORY, that they then go looking for evidence to "prove."

And whenever evidence pops up that contradicts their theory, they go to all kinds of contortions to discredit it, twist it into saying something it never said, or flat-out deny it.

That's not how history works. That's not how competent and honest people process history. Competent and honest people begin by saying, "Let's go see what the Founding Fathers and our experts in the law have had to say." They then carefully and objectively weigh the quality of the evidence in each direction - if they have more than one theory of what something meant - and they go with what the evidence, interpreted in context, tells them.

So they derive their THEORY from the evidence. They don't come up with a nice-sounding theory and then go try to "prove" it and ram it down other people's throats even though it's in extensive conflict with the evidence.

Still trotting out your Bayard claim?

Bayard is contrary to law and your claims are overstatements, which you have been shown several times, recently in this post:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3054477/posts?page=77#77

Exaggeration is one thing, repeatedly posting the same falsehood and exaggeration is deliberate deception, i.e. lying.

I agree.

Furthermore, I think if you scratch the surface of many of these “Natural Law” supporters, you’ll find a Paul fan.

Let's also be clear that according to the documentation left behind by the legal experts of the early United States, "natural born citizen" absolutely DOES NOT require both birth on US soil and citizen parents. It only requires that a person be BORN A CITIZEN, which is exactly what Ted Cruz was.

No, let us be clear that according to the documentation left behind by the legal experts of the early United States, that "natural born citizen" absolutely DOES REQUIRE a Citizen who is a father.

Being BORN A CITIZEN required a FATHER who was a citizen, or in the process of BECOMING a citizen. You got your big fat @$$ whipped regarding Bayard where you kept going on and on an on about Bayard's contention that being "born a citizen" made one a "natural born citizen" and as *I* told you, there is nothing wrong with Bayard's statement if you postulate that being "born a citizen" required a citizen father.

We find out from Thomas Bayard that this is exactly what his father meant. A Child must have a CITIZEN FATHER to be a citizen. A Child of a German citizen born in Ohio was a GERMAN citizen, not an American citizen. Just as the child of a TRANSIENT KENYAN is a KENYAN citizen, not an American citizen.

They start not by going and reading history, law and the Founding Fathers and early legal experts, with anything like an open mind.

You are the biggest F***** Hypocrite! There is no one out there more intent on IGNORING early legal experts than you. You keep saying CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN MARSHALL wasn't talking about "natural born citizen" when he quotes Vattel on "natives or indigenes", but you never answer the question as to what sort of citizen he WAS talking about.

Chief Justice John Marshall:

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.

Justice Bushrod Washington:

1. The writers upon the law of nations distinguish between a temporary residence in a foreign country for a special purpose and a residence accompanied with an intention to make it a permanent place of abode. The latter is styled by Vattel "domicile," which he defines to be, "a habitation fixed in any place, with an intention of always staying there." Such a person, says this author, becomes a member of the new society, at least as a permanent inhabitant, and is a kind of citizen of an inferior order from the native citizens, but is nevertheless united and subject to the society without participating in all its advantages. This right of domicile, he continues, is not established unless the person makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly or by an express declaration. Vatt. 92-93.

You KNOW you don't have a leg to stand on, but here you are still lying about it!

That's not how history works. That's not how competent and honest people process history. Competent and honest people begin by saying, "Let's go see what the Founding Fathers and our experts in the law have had to say.

Yeah, tell me about Honest you freaking pathological liar. It doesn't matter how many times you are shown that better authorities beat your PRETEND authorities, you still ignore the better authorities for your Rump lawyers.

Once again, My two supreme court Justices beat your British Lawyer.

BOTH THESE GUYS debated the Adoption of the US Constitution! How many Delegates have YOU got?