And here is what you would find if you opened it:
The mis-translation "natural born citizen" was not found until 1797, 10 years after the US Constitution.
Posted on 01/06/2016 2:24:04 PM PST by Isara
——They can’t legislate who is a natural born Citizen. That is defined by Natural Law.-——
By what means does natural law define NBC?
I don’t see it and I understand natural law...
212. Citizens and natives.
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 natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
And here is what you would find if you opened it:
The mis-translation "natural born citizen" was not found until 1797, 10 years after the US Constitution.
See post 143 for how Vattel was translated. However, Vattel WAS only one of many who wrote on ‘the law of nations’, or ‘international law’ as it is called to day. The fact that their are many varying standards of citizenship suggests there IS NO NATURAL LAW that applies.
One can say “homosexuality violates natural law” because the penis obviously does not function naturally for sexual reproduction in the rectum. There is no clear cut “natural law” that defines citizenship. Vattel was a respected writer on international law. Why that is supposed to bind us when English common law supposedly does not is beyond me. Beyond birthers, as well.
To be honest, judging from your past statements, I just don’t trust your graphic to be as you claim. What proof do you have?
Sorry, that ain’t it.
The 1790 Act concerns Naturalization. To squeeze two words out of context to bring credence to the “Natural Born” is the same as “Citizen” doesn’t hold.
We will hear and read 100 different justifications, one way or the other. But, “Citizen” is NOT “Natural Born Citizen”. This has not been adjudicated and determined for all to see.
One take:
If one reads closely the wording of the 1790 act, the sole reference to “natural born” is a comparative declaration between the “Citizenship” eligibility of children born to “Naturalized Citizens” vis a vie the children born of Natural Born citizens.
Once Naturalized, their kids can be declared “Citizens” too.
Right now, it depends on whose ox is being gored.
Get SCOTUS to make a determination.
As I wrote, Hitlery WILL make a big deal out of this if Our Man Ted is the nominee.
“I just don’t trust your graphic to be as you claim.”
Well, since I don’t own a copy of the 1787 edition, and wouldn’t mail it to you if I did, I guess you’ll just have to believe I’m lying. I downloaded the image some time ago.
There is a good discussion of various editions here, and it may have been where I downloaded the image from:
http://www.greschak.com/essays/natborn/index.htm
But short of us both going to Washington DC and examining the book in person, I doubt there is much possibility of agreement on texts.
What can certainly be agreed is that at no time does Vattel use the french phase “sujets natural” - possible spelling error - which was french for natural born subjects. Instead he used the word “indigenes”, which can still be found in some English dictionaries, although it is normally expanded to “indigenous persons”.
This link is another good one concerning how the ratifiers of the Constitution understood “NBC” - namely, they used it interchangeably with NBS.
http://www.greschak.com/articles/natactma/index.htm
However, please notice that the guy who posted those images eventually concluded: “A natural born Citizen of the United States is a native born Citizen of the United States, born exclusively of Citizens of the United States.” So the images come from someone who was a birther, but was also honest enough to provide the images of Vattel’s writing.
Rush is authentically famous. Trump's fame is manufactured and marketed. Trump is a phony baloney next to Rush Limbaugh in terms of fame, a pretender. He may be worth much more in terms of fortune, but as for fame -- Trump had to buy it, the same way he practically boasts about having bought political influence.
I just hope Rush knows how much greater he is than Trump.
I will examine the links and respond when I find the time.
Rush, like many other so called “conservative” commentators, was too afraid of the MSM and GOPe to challenge Obama’s eligibility when it was necessary. I’ve held him in very low regard since that time.
BTW, the on air employees of the Ruppert Murdoch Show (Hannity, etc...) were forced to back off the eligibility issue by the big boss back in 2008.
It is, however, TOTALLY BESIDE THE POINT with regard to the truth in my post 148.
If you are impressed with Trump ... then you are easily impressed.
More Trump worship.
I’ll note that the only words you capitalized was “I” and “Trump”
Well, I completely misread your post.
Now, I will enjoy a one week self imposed suspension.
I will use the time to calibrate my knee jerk.
lol.
I don’t remember getting the first one :)
it’s all good.
Cruz first, but trump in the generals of course, at least for me
have a good one
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.