Replies

"I am correct and you're obviously wrong."

And yet you still are completely unable to come up with a single example of a single Framer who ever mentioned de Vattel and citizenship in the same breath. Go figure.

"You don't need a single instance of them debating when they universally accepted de Vattel's citizenship definition as the intent behind the natural born citizen clause."

Well, I guess not. When you go from claiming that it was an influence at all to claiming it was "universally accepted," then you need far more than just a single instance. You would need 55. And yet, you cannot come up with a single one. Astounding how clever they were to have so carefully hidden their dependence on de Vattel. It cannot have been an accident. The Obama conspiracy must go even higher than we thought!!!

"We do know however that the first chief justice of the United States John Jay stating to George Washington expressing that the Commander-In-Chief be none other than a 'natural born'. As we all should know, the president wears the hat as the Commander-In-Chief of these United States. George Washington signed the US Constitution representing the state of Virginia and he presided over the 1787 Convention. The John Jay letter to Washington is dated July 25th, 1787, which falls within the time period of the Convention that went from May 25 to September 17, 1787."

Know the letter well. Love the letter. Too bad John Jay (not a Framer) never mentioned de Vattel in the letter. So... still not a single example? I guess not.

"Moreover, John Jay was a member and president of the Continental Congress. The same Congress that de Vattel's Law of Nations that was "continually in their hands" that Benjamin Franklin stated in his Memoirs."

Blackstone was in their hands too. And unlike de Vattel, he actually mentions "natural born" citizens.

"John Jay was a US diplomat who lived in France as well as spoke French who was keenly aware of de Vattel's Law of Nations as to where he undoubtedly found the term 'natural born' and understood its meaning before he wrote to George Washington."

Ooops. Just like Brittany Spears you did it again. You forgot that the term "natural born" could not be found at all in de Vattel until 1797. Your' "undoubtedly" is not merely "doubtful." It is impossible.

"The Supreme Court of the United States in their majority opinion of 1814 quoting the de Vattel's citizenship definition verbatim...what constitutes a Natural Born Citizen."

Oh? Really?

Could you please go back to your excerpt from the Venus case and point out to us all the words "Natural Born Citizen?" Maybe you could highlight them? Color them red perhaps or make them really really big? Because I gotta tell you... They do not appear to be there. Anywhere. Not once.

I guess we remain exactly where we have always been. You cannot provide a single example of a single Framer who even hinted that de Vattel had anything to do with Articel II of the US Constitution.

Well, I guess not. When you go from claiming that it was an influence at all to claiming it was "universally accepted," then you need far more than just a single instance. You would need 55. And yet, you cannot come up with a single one. Astounding how clever they were to have so carefully hidden their dependence on de Vattel. It cannot have been an accident. The Obama conspiracy must go even higher than we thought!!!

You have no instances for your fantasy natural born citizen definition. How is your girl Obama doing these days? It's not too good for her - no hopeee or changeee. And no chance for him or you to rewrite the history for what is a natural born citizen.

Know the letter well. Love the letter. Too bad John Jay (not a Framer) never mentioned de Vattel in the letter. So... still not a single example? I guess not.

John Jay must have been satisfied with his representation for the 1787 Constitutional Convention. Or all Jay had to do was write Washington with his concerns to ensure that natural born citizen were the only ones qualified to be presidents...no need to leave New York.

Blackstone was in their hands too. And unlike de Vattel, he actually mentions "natural born" citizens.

No one thinks of Blackstone as it pertains to natural born citizen in the Constitution except for the wishful thinkers on your side. The common law of England is not the common law of the United States.

Ooops. Just like Brittany Spears you did it again. You forgot that the term "natural born" could not be found at all in de Vattel until 1797. Your' "undoubtedly" is not merely "doubtful." It is impossible.

The 1758 French edition of Vattel says 'natural' doesn't it? The answer: yes it does! John Jay and Benjamin Franklin could read French. You're on Mission Impossible for Obama.

Could you please go back to your excerpt from the Venus case and point out to us all the words "Natural Born Citizen?" Maybe you could highlight them? Color them red perhaps or make them really really big? Because I gotta tell you... They do not appear to be there. Anywhere. Not once.

No need to because Justice Marshall quoted Vattel's definition of what is a natural born citizen.

I guess we remain exactly where we have always been. You cannot provide a single example of a single Framer who even hinted that de Vattel had anything to do with Articel II of the US Constitution.

The preDOMINANCE of evidence is crushing you though.