Posted on 09/05/2015 1:47:06 PM PDT by iowamark
This does not speak to the issue of “natural law” which is universal and applies world wide, not just in the United States.
Haha.
Here is your original statement:
‘When the campaign produced the first copy of the Certification of Live Birth in June of 2008, they placed the digital image of that document on the “Obama For America” [campaign] web site’
Hmmm. No mention of DailyKos. In fact, to read your statement, the COLB was never released to Kos. It “first” appeared on Obama’s campaign website.
Well that is a flat lie. It FIRST appeared on Kos.
Now why would you lyingly omit that? Is it bc Kos is one of the moonbattiest, most insane, hate-driven far-left websites on the internet? Is it uncomfortable to explain why Obama would pick that site to debute an ‘official’ release?
Or is there more involved in your dishonest omission of Kos?
There is more. Here is a Kos post, from moments before the entire thread was pulled, that contains more facts you dishonestly ommitted:
‘Birth Certificate is an Obvious Fake (0+ / 0-)
Sorry to disabuse you folks, but this birth certificate on dailykos is an obvious fake.
The fake “birth certificate” just appeared Thursday morning on dailykos without any reference as to who released it or where it came from.
There is a link from the FightTheSmears website to “the truth” posting on MyBarackObama.com to it without any reference. (i.e. there is no “this is Barack Obama’s birth certificate provided to dailykos by person xxx of the Obama campaign”)
There is no provenance explaining where the “birth certificate” came from. In Hawaii, birth certificates aren’t publicly available and reporters’ requests for one have been ignored for months.
There is no explanation as to whom vouches for its origins or its authenticity.
The certificate number is blacked out. Why?
There are image artifacts consistent with forgeries and image processing. It’s not a real, unprocessed scan of a birth certificate.
It’s not certified. Hawaii state code provides that certificates issued by the department of health be certified:
“§338-13 Certified copies. (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof. (b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original,...”
This certificate is what the Hawaii DOH calls a “Late” Certificate of Birth, and it is not an original Birth Certificate for a birth recorded near the date of actual birth. In Hawaii, anyone can claim they were born there and submit the evidence years after the birth to obtain a late “Certificate of Birth”.
“Who is Eligible to Apply for Late Registration? As provided by law (HRS §§338-15, 338-29.5), the following persons may apply for late registration: Any person born in Hawaii who is one year old or older and whose birth has not been previously registered in Hawaii, or that person’s parent, guardian, next of kin, or older person acting for that person and having knowledge of the facts of birth may request the registration of a late certificate of birth.
Doe the Obama campaign have a statement on this uncertified “birth certificate?”
Isn’t this Obama’s “birth certificate” issue getting to be kind of strange by now?
How can a man run for President without disclosing his birth certificate?
Why does an anonymous, no-provenance, obviously fake scan of an uncertified birth certificate appear on DailyKos, a fanatically pro-Obama blog?
Why won’t the Obamas or the Obama campaign just formally and transparently release a certified copy of Barack Obama’s birth certificate?
“It’s like these guys take pride in being ignorant.” - Barack Obama
by AsperGirl on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:05:30 AM PDT’
Do you see how hard you work to be dishonest? A ‘messenger,’ which you falsely claim to be, would post a factual acct of Obama’s fraudulent COLB. But you simply post the leftist-liberal talking points, and hope you can deceive people. That is, obviously, your best hope of ‘demoralizing conservatives,’ to quote your own words.
[You left all the objective facts out of your second post as well. It was just more Obama propaganda.]
To be a bit more precise and appropriate in one's terminology. As Kent notes, "citizen" is the more appropriate term when discussing a republican form of government. You're right, the habitual usage was "subject," and with some it was a case of "oh, right, I should now use "citizen." But in other instances I've shown (the Vermont Constitution of 1777, Zeph. Swift (1796), etc.) that holdover usage of "subject" persisted without seemingly anyone doing the modern-day Birther faux outrage and histrionics of "We are not subjects! We don't have a King! We fought a Revolution to cast off that term!"
Jefferson corrected his initial thought. But it's not like one term was wholly right and one wholly wrong. They were often used interchangeably in this period.
The proof is in the word "Citizen" itself. I've looked up all instances of it in Shakespeare, and i've looked up all instances of it in Blackstone. The normal English usage is to describe the inhabitants of a City, not the members of a Confederated Republic of independent states.
Well, DumbDumb, Vattel isn't "English usage." So your looking just at the likes of Shakespeare and Blackstone is a convenient (and flawed) case of selective sampling.
How about you look at someone like Montesquieu?
3. What is meant by a Love of the Republic in a Democracy. A love of the republic in a democracy is a love of the democracy; as the latter is that of equality.
A love of the democracy is likewise that of frugality. Since every individual ought here to enjoy the same happiness and the same advantages, they should consequently taste the same pleasures and form the same hopes, which cannot be expected but from a general frugality.
The love of equality in a democracy limits ambition to the sole desire, to the sole happiness, of doing greater services to our country than the rest of our fellow-citizens. The Spirit of the Laws, Bk. 5, Ch. 3
"Democracy." "Republic." "Citizens!" Gosh, I guess Montesquieu got this all from Vattel, too, right? But, hmmm, Montesquieu isn't talking about inhabitants of a city. He must have borrowed this from Vattel. But, wait, Montesquieu published his work in 1748, about 8 years before Vattel published his. Now there's a dilemma. Wait! It must be that Montesquieu had a copy of Vattel's notes, because under your kooky theory, any mention of "citizen" not referring to city inhabitants must have come from Vattel. Right?
And how influential was Montesquieu on the Framers of the Constitution. You know, that Constitution that has the word "citizen" in Article II, the one that is under debate here?
The key principle underling that document was separation of powers. And what did James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution" have to say on that point?
The oracle who is always consulted and cited on this subject is the celebrated Montesquieu. If he be not the author of this invaluable precept in the science of politics, he has the merit at least of displaying and recommending it most effectually to the attention of mankind. Let us endeavor, in the first place, to ascertain his meaning on this point. The British Constitution was to Montesquieu what Homer has been to the didactic writers on epic poetry. As the latter have considered the work of the immortal bard as the perfect model from which the principles and rules of the epic art were to be drawn, and by which all similar works were to be judged, so this great political critic appears to have viewed the Constitution of England as the standard, or to use his own expression, as the mirror of political liberty; and to have delivered, in the form of elementary truths, the several characteristic principles of that particular system. That we may be sure, then, not to mistake his meaning in this case, let us recur to the source from which the maxim was drawn. The Federalist Papers, Article 47
On Constitutional matters, Montesquieu is termed "the oracle." But surely the writers of the Federalist Papers had glowing things to say about Mssr. Vattel. Oh, wait. Right. They don't mention Vattel at all.
Kinda shoots a big hole in your theory that "natural born citizen" derives from Vattel, doesn't it? :)
Even your lunatic buddies over at Dr. Conspiracy's kook site acknowledge that Jefferson borrowed heavily from Vattel in writing the Declaration of Independence.
A point I'm not disputing in the least. Certain phrasing in the Declaration (e.g., about attaining perfection in political union) seems distinct to Vattel. What I'm disputing is your contention that because some parts of the Declaration seem to trace to Vattel, that non-distinctive terms (like "citizen") must be taken as derived from Vattel as well. Nonsense. Nonsequittur. Pure hand-wave argument.
And this is before we get to the further problem you face that Jefferson was in France when the Constitution was being drafted and debated. So your assumptions get even more attenuated.
You are not helping your case. Montesquieu was French, and wrote in French too. What was that French Standard for "Citoyenship" again? :)
Hmm, let's see. We're talking about the period roughly 1776 to 1787 here. And I recall the situation in France being discussed in that case you've never read: U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.
But at the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States in 1789, and long before, it would seem to have been the rule in Europe generally, as it certainly was in France, that, as said by Pothier, "citizens, true and native-born citizens, are those who are born within the extent of the dominion of France," and
mere birth within the realm gives the rights of a native-born citizen, independently of the origin of the father or mother, and of their domicil;
and children born in a foreign country, of a French father who had not established his domicil there nor given up the intention of returning, were also deemed Frenchmen, as Laurent says, by "a favor, a sort of fiction," and Calvo, "by a sort of fiction of exterritoriality, considered as born in France, and therefore invested with French nationality." Pothier Trait des Personnes, pt. 1, tit. 2, sect. 1, nos. 43, 45; Walsh-Serrant v. Walsh-Serrant, (1802) 3 Journal du Palais, 384; S.C., S. Merlin, Jurisprudence, (5th ed.) Domicile, § 13; Prefet du Nord v. Lebeau, (1862) Journal du Palais, 1863, 312 and note; 1 Laurent Droit Civil, no. 321; 2 Calvo Droit International, (5th ed.) § 542; Cockburn on Nationality, 13, 14; Hall's International Law, (4th ed.) § 68. The general principle of citizenship by birth within French territory prevailed until after the French Revolution, and was affirmed in successive constitutions from the one adopted by the Constituent Assembly in 1791 to that of the French Republic in 1799. Constitutions et Chartes, (ed. 1830) pp. 100, 136, 148, 186. [p667] The Code Napoleon of 1807 changed the law of France and adopted, instead of the rule of country of birth, jus soli, the rule of descent or blood, jus sanguinis, as the leading principle; but an eminent commentator has observed that the framers of that code appear not to have wholly freed themselves from the ancient rule of France, or rather, indeed, ancient rule of Europe -- de la vielle regle francaise, ou plutot meme de la vielle regle europienne -- according to which nationality had always been, in former times, determined by the place of birth.
What was the French standard for "Citoyenship," you ask? It was jus soli. :) :) And certainly the likes of Franklin and Jefferson and the other Founders and Framers who were well-acquainted with France and its citoyens knew this.
John Locke does not declare a natural right to revolution and Independence.
Oh, DumbDumb, your intellectual laziness and obvious penchant for just reading and parroting things from like-minded Birthers makes it so easy to toy with you. Consider this excerpt from John Locke, a chapter entitled "Right of Revolution":
220. In these and the like Cases, when the Government is dissolved, the People are at liberty to provide for themselves, by erecting a new Legislative, differing from the other, by the change of Persons, or Form, or both as they shall find it most for their safety and good. For the Society can never, by the fault of another, lose the Native and Original Right it has to preserve it self, which can only be done by a settled Legislative, and a fair and impartial execution of the Laws made by it. But the state of Mankind is not so miserable that they are not capable of using this Remedy, till it be too late to look for any. To tell People they may provide for themselves, by erecting a new Legislative, when by Oppression, Artifice, or being delivered over to a Foreign Power, their old one is gone, is only to tell them they may expect Relief, when it is too late, and the evil is past Cure. This is in effect no more than to bid them first be Slaves, and then to take care of their Liberty; and when their Chains are on, tell them, they may act like Freemen. This, if barely so, is rather Mockery than Relief; and Men can never be secure from Tyranny, if there be no means to escape it, till they are perfectly under it: And therefore it is, that they have not only a Right to get out of it, but to prevent it.
This is the same John Locke that James Otis credited with "fanning the flames of Revolution."
A simple way to represent citizen ship
Non-Citizen those that have no claim to us citizen ship in any way.
Naturalized-citizens those that my statue and volitotion have become citizens but were at birth citizens or subjects of other nations.
Natural born citizens those that were at the time of there birth citizens not requiring any other legal procedure to change there citizenship to that of the United States.
T.Cruze is and always has been a citizen of the united states since his birth, he has never of his volition claimed any other citizenship nor has he ever been required to do so my the United States.
The issue with B.Obama was that if he was NOT born in the United States that at that time there was legal requirment for the age and amount of time of the mother (in his case) to have been in the USA and of a correct age.
In B.Obamas case this was the law in 1961
Citizen parent
physically present in
U.S. or possession 10
year prior to child’s
birth, five of which after
age 14.
Ergo if he was not born in US (Hawaii) she being 18 at the time of his birth could not fulfill the 5 years after age 14. This and only this is why his birth certificate is at all an issue to his Citizenship.
* see
http://photos.state.gov/libraries/unitedkingdom/164203/cons-acs/transmission_tables.pdf page [4]
For the actual law read the following.
http://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-
Volume12-PartH-Chapter3.html
and
June 12, 2008 vs. June 13, 2008. And the birth certificate was used on the Obama campaign web site as a fund raiser.
My goodness, you really are that desperate to win a minor debatng point aren’t you, poor baby.
Hey everybody, Fantasywriter was absolutely right that the Obama short form appeared on the Daily Kos website a day before it appeared on the Obama For America web site. Congratulations to Fantasywriter for this stunning revelation.
With declining frequency as time passed. Social inertia takes time to dissipate.
Well, DumbDumb, Vattel isn't "English usage." So your looking just at the likes of Shakespeare and Blackstone is a convenient (and flawed) case of selective sampling.
Admitting that the usage of the word is derived from foreign sources is tantamount to admitting the foreign understanding of it also applies. Well done.
How about you look at someone like Montesquieu?
"Democracy." "Republic." "Citizens!"
The only possible salvation for your argument is to connect the word "Citizen" to English Common law. Connecting it to the Roman "Republic" or Greek "Democracy" is arguing for the exact opposite premise.
Both entities required that Citizenship be passed from Parent's to Child.
And how influential was Montesquieu on the Framers of the Constitution. You know, that Constitution that has the word "citizen" in Article II, the one that is under debate here?
Who cares? The Constitution did not create American Citizens. The Declaration of Independence created American citizens. By the time they wrote the constitution, the character of an American citizen was already established, and seemingly you think it is based on "Republic" and "Democracy", which means Roman or Greek legal principles, both of which assert a position contrary to yours.
On Constitutional matters, Montesquieu is termed "the oracle." But surely the writers of the Federalist Papers had glowing things to say about Mssr. Vattel. Oh, wait. Right. They don't mention Vattel at all.
Perhaps you should be looking in the various state conventions on ratification. They mention Vattel and his "Law of Nations" often enough.
I would say a mention in the State Legislatures' deliberations in weighing the Constitution amounts to a more serious consideration than does articles published in newspapers of the period.
While you're at it, look him up in the actual Constitutional convention debates. He's mentioned there too. Also, according to the Supreme Court in 1977:
The international jurist most widely cited in the first 50 years after the Revolution was Emmerich de Vattel.
And this is before we get to the further problem you face that Jefferson was in France when the Constitution was being drafted and debated. So your assumptions get even more attenuated.
And silly bird, you think the Constitution still has something to do with the creation of American citizens. Nope, that was settled 11 years earlier, according to Justice Joseph Story.
If he was born after 15 September, 1776, and his parents did not elect to become members of the State of New York, but adhered to their native allegiance at the time of his birth,then he was born a British subject.
And looky there! He even specifically says that a person can be born in the United States, and yet not be a citizen, and that it depends on his Parent's allegiance.
Perhaps it has not escaped your notice that you are getting shredded?
Hmm, let's see. We're talking about the period roughly 1776 to 1787 here. And I recall the situation in France being discussed in that case you've never read: U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.
I have no interest in discussing the understanding of words written in 1776 as filtered through the opinions of Liberal Judges from 1898. And with that, I will forgo reading the rest of your wall of text. When I saw it, I almost tossed the whole thing anyways.
I could have sworn that this thread was about natural born citizenship in the United States.
What tribe do Americans belong to?
Follow the thread links back to where the topic diverged slightly, and you will have it.
Consider this excerpt from John Locke, a chapter entitled "Right of Revolution":
Oh, and you left out the word "Independence." "Revolution" is actually a commonly used misnomer. The US didn't have an actual "Revolution", they had a "War of Independence."
"Revolution" is the lazy man's shorthand, so it gets used a lot. Did Locke happen to mention the confederation of states in a perpetual union anywhere?
Ah, a “sub-issue.” I see.
Haha. You get caught in Yet Another bald-faced pro-Obama propaganda lie, and you go into your childish stompy foot routine. You’re as immature as you are amusing.
Looks like I made your day!
You’re welcome. Anything to keep you from getting “discouraged.”
Well, duh, it's not like Americans invented the concept of citizen. But where you miss the mark here (again) is your facile presumption that Vattel, and Vattel alone, constituted "the foreign understanding." He didn't. The French had an understanding of "citoyen" at this time that held to a jus soli view. And persons like Franklin and Jefferson and others well-acquainted with the French would have understood this. That was in the part of my prior post you choose to skip past. And so it's a part I'm will endeavor to keep throwing in your face.
The only possible salvation for your argument is to connect the word "Citizen" to English Common law.
Since the parallel between "natural born subject" and "natural born citizen" was amply made both before and after the framing of the Constitution, salvation has arrived. (Hallelujah!)
Connecting it to the Roman "Republic" or Greek "Democracy" is arguing for the exact opposite premise.
Strawman argument. It's sufficient to connect it to then-existing notions of citizenship, e.g., France (you know, that country that helped us triumph in the Revolution). France at this time was jus soli.
Who cares? The Constitution did not create American Citizens.
How quickly (though consistently) you lose sight of the issue.
The Constitution is the document that uses the term "natural born citizen," which is the concept under discussion. What that term meant in 1787 is the issue. All of the stuff about who influenced Jefferson, etc., is just prologue towards understanding what NBC signified in 1787. And given that Montesquieu (#1 on the Donald Lutz study of most-cited political writers) wrote of "citoyens" (and, again, France at this time was jus soli) and given that Blackstone (#2 on the list) also espoused a jus soli view of the common law, yours is a pretty p*ss-poor argument that tries elevate Vattel (#29 on the list) and claim because Vattel (an international law writer, and citizenship is a topic of municipal law) speaks in one section of a jus sanguinis rule that such is the meaning in the Constitution.
Salvation hasn't come to you yet on this point. Nor will it.
Perhaps you should be looking in the various state conventions on ratification. They mention Vattel and his "Law of Nations" often enough.
And I'll wager they mention Montesquieu and Blackstone even more. So what's your point?
While you're at it, look him up in the actual Constitutional convention debates. He's mentioned there too.
Ditto the point above.
What you don't have in either the Convention or Ratifying debates is anyone citing to Vattel on citizenship. All you have is one great hand-wave that because you see Vattel cited on other points that he was the influence on Article II NBC.
Also, according to the Supreme Court in 1977:
"The international jurist most widely cited in the first 50 years after the Revolution was Emmerich de Vattel."
Why are you citing to the "modern court?" According to you, the Wong Kim Ark court in 1898 was "modern." You are nothing if not inconsistent.
Until you are foolishly consistent: you hauled out this quote back in 2013 when I first listed the Lutz study results, showing Vattel down around #29 on the list. Same reply as then and since: "Yes, Vattel, was cited on matters of international law, but citizenship is a matter of municipal law. So go pound sand." (I've by now given you at least 3 sources to substantiate this distinction; yet you remain clueless).
And silly bird, you think the Constitution still has something to do with the creation of American citizens. Nope, that was settled 11 years earlier, according to Justice Joseph Story.
I'd act aghast that you cannot possibly be this dishonest (or this stupid) as to hold up Joseph Story on this point, but you've got a long track record of pulling these stunts.
Right. This question was settled 11 years before, and Story lays out the rule with absolute clarity. If only you weren't such a dishonest slob by omitting the portions preceding the sentence you quoted, this would be clear:
That the father and mother of the demandant were British born subjects is admitted. If he was born before 4 July, 1776, it is as clear that he was born a British subject. If he was born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September, 1776, he was born an American citizen, whether his parents were at the time of his birth British subjects or American citizens. Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.
(Did you notice how Justice Story connects "citizen" with English common law? Hallelujah! :) )
Story lays out the same rule enunciated by Z. Swift 8 years after the Constitution was drafted. And the same rule enunciated by St. George Tucker a few years later. And by Chancellor Kent. Oh, and, yes, after Kent comes Wm. Rawle. Plus, Chancellor Sandford (Lynch v. Clarke). Plus, the 39th Congress (which affirmed the "existing law"). Plus, the SCOTUS.
You're dishonest because you truncate quotes to make the writer appear to support you when he doesn't. (You did the same with James F. Wilson, House Jud. Chairman in the 39th Congress).
You're an idiot, because I corrected you (and MamaTexan) back in February when you were having your little go-round about how it was nice to have someone as illustrious as Joseph Story in your camp. You don't learn.
(Now, explain to me how it is I'm being shredded? :) )
If you had been reading with the intent of trying to learn something instead of pushing more Pro-Obama-Legitimacy propaganda, you would have realize that the conversation had moved on to the topic of "natural law."
The "Tribes" reference was related to the concepts being understood by primitive people's world wide, even Europeans, who were also "tribal" in earlier history.
LOL. A feeble reply when after you've written "John Locke does not declare a natural right to revolution and independence" I highlight your historical illiteracy yet again by showing where he writes of the "Right of Revolution."
"Independence" follows as a matter of course when that right of revolution (which Locke clearly espouses) results in a change in government (which he also acknowledges) and the land under the former government is geographically separate from the seat of government.
When Locke was writing the era of colonialism was still developing. You can protest all day that you don't think he mattered in the way you see Vattel because you don't see the word "independence" beside "revolution" in Locke. But the American colonists 70 years later saw the applicability of his thoughts to their situation. The link on the Convention debates you provided in your attempt to elevate Vattel proves my point about Locke:
"In order to prove that individuals in a State of nature are equally free & independent he read passages from Locke, Vattel, Lord Summers- Priestly. To prove that the case is the same with States till they surrender their equal sovereignty, he read other passages in Locke & Vattel, and also Rutherford[.]"
Want more?
He expressed the radical view that government is morally obliged to serve people, namely by protecting life, liberty, and property. He explained the principle of checks and balances to limit government power. He favored representative government and a rule of law. He denounced tyranny. He insisted that when government violates individual rights, people may legitimately rebel.
These views were most fully developed in Locke’s famous Second Treatise Concerning Civil Government, and they were so radical that he never dared sign his name to it. He acknowledged authorship only in his will. Locke’s writings did much to inspire the libertarian ideals of the American Revolution. This, in turn, set an example which inspired people throughout Europe, Latin America, and Asia.
Thomas Jefferson ranked Locke, along with Locke’s compatriot Algernon Sidney, as the most important thinkers on liberty. Locke helped inspire Thomas Paine’s radical ideas about revolution. Locke fired up George Mason. From Locke, James Madison drew his most fundamental principles of liberty and government. Locke’s writings were part of Benjamin Franklin’s self-education, and John Adams believed that both girls and boys should learn about Locke. The French philosopher Voltaire called Locke “the man of the greatest wisdom. What he has not seen clearly, I despair of ever seeing.”
Locke. Freedom. Independence. But to listen to the historically illiterate DiogenesLamp, one would think the notion of independence couldn't be derived from Locke (or others), only Vattel. Yet persons like James Otis credit Locke (and in both Otis and the passage above Locke is listed first before Vattel). Go figure.
The US didn't have an actual "Revolution", they had a "War of Independence."
Oh, I see.
"The American Revolution was not a common event. Its effects and consequences have already been awful over a great part of the globe. And when and where are they to cease?
But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations." John Adams, Letter to H. Niles, 1818"THESE are times that tried men's souls,and they are over- and the greatest and completest revolution the world ever knew, gloriously and happily accomplished." Thomas Paine, The American Crisis, April 19, 1783.
"For, according to the system of Policy the States shall adopt at this moment, they will stand or fall, and by their confirmation or lapse, it is yet to be decided, whether the Revolution must ultimately be considered as a blessing or a curse: a blessing or a curse, not to the present age alone, for with our fate will the destiny of unborn Millions be involved." George Washington, Circular to the States (1783).
It seems Washington, Adams, and Paine are "lazy men" who didn't get the memo that we didn't strictly speaking have a revolution. Thank goodness we have a 21st Century goofball engineer to set the record straight.
Did Locke happen to mention the confederation of states in a perpetual union anywhere?
I don't know. But the question is irrelevant to the point of whether Locke's views on revolution inspired the American Colonists. They did. The point can't credibly be disputed.
Switzerland as an existing federation was naturally closer as a model than anything else in Europe at the time. This was probably true whether anyone read Vattel or not. Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui was another contemporary Swiss author who also wrote a treatise on natural law and political philosophy -- The Principles of Natural and Politic Law (1748). This on Burlamaqui:
Burlamaqui's treatise The Principles of Natural and Politic Law was translated into six languages (besides the original French) in 60 editions. His vision of constitutionalism had a major influence on the American Founding Fathers: "Early American thought also drew on ideas circulating on the Continent. The author who played the greatest part in transmitting those ideas over the Atlantic was the Swiss writer Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui, now almost forgotten, but at one time a best-selling author." . . . He was frequently quoted or He was the first philosopher to articulate the quest for happiness as a natural human right, a principle that Thomas Jefferson later restated in the Declaration of Independence.[5] . . .Burlamaqui's description of European countries as forming "a kind of republic the members of which, independent but bound by common interest, come together to maintain order and liberty" is quoted by Michel Foucault in his 1978 lectures at the Collège de France in the context of a discussion of diplomacy and the law of nations.[6]."
Yes, Vattel was influential. Though but for an English translation of his work coming 9 years AFTER the U.S. Constitution was drafted that used the term "natural born citizen," this absurd elevation of Vattel to try to make him out to be the predominant inspiration for American independence and Constitutional republic would not be happening.
It’s the lies, Nero Germanicus. It’s unseemly for you, a liberal, to come on a conservative site and pimp lies for Obama. That’s not what the site wast set up for.
And none of your, ‘I’m really a conservative,’ garbage. A conservative would not lie to help Obama when the truth hurts him. In this case, the truth was inglorious and, frankly, disastrous for Obama.
So what did you do? You deleted all the FACTS that hurt Obama and substituted a pristine fairytale for his benefit.
Conservatives don’t do that, Nero Germanicus. Liberal obot trolls do that.
This is your MO. In every case you select whatever version of a story most benefits Obama, and you post it. You have NEVER slipped up and posted any version, spin or scenario unfavorable to Obama. You have lied in Obama’s favor, but you have never even come close to lying to harm him [not that this is advocated.]
Of course the giveaway comes when you’re corrected. Then you display all the moral depth of a sociopathic fourteen yo. I.e.: you go full metal troll.
Your behavior is not good for the site. If you can’t post the truth when it hurts Obama, you need to rethink your purpose. “Demoralizing conservatives” is a pathetic pastime.
Not to butt in... but I’m butting in.
About the title... not about your argument...
Any liberal Obama supporter that says Cruz isn’t qualified due to citizenship issues...
I will personally kick square in the crotch.
From the article which is the subject of this thread:
“In conclusion, not a single argument put forth by the eligibility challengers holds up. Each is either a misinterpretation at best or an outright falsehood at worst. Arguing over this issue has become a waste of time much better spent on other things. Unfortunately, there are a few folks who continue to cling to this view, and equally unfortunate is the often venomous attitude they display toward anyone who disagrees with them. Most of the arguments you may encounter will consist of one or more of the claims we have covered above. And most of the time, they will count on you not bothering to actually try to research or verify what they claim a particular court case says. Consider this your “Cliff Notes” on all their arguments—a concise, documented reference to all that is wrong about their claims.”
Conservatives value debate and conservatives can disagree with each other as an expression of our God-Given First Amendment rights.
I don’t think you have any cause for concern. The troll’s only real focus is in arguing that all Obama’s birth-related records are in perfect order and above suspicion.
Your quote:
‘I prefer to look at facts: what has happened and what is happening now.
Based on what has happened with Obama and the theory that he was not born in the U.S., the challenges to his eligibility helped him with undecided voters more than it hurt him. That’s why he wanted to keep the issue alive rather than resolving it.’
You pretend what you wrote was a ‘fact,’ but it’s actually no more than obot lore/propaganda. Of course the instant you were challenged, you beat a hasty retreat into the historical-rewrite, ‘it’s only my opinion.’ I offered you a ‘fact’ that proves your opinion wrong, and you assiduously avoided it.
As long as you use this site to promote the obot meme that questioning Obama’s integrity helps him now or has helped him in the past, you will be challenged.
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.