Posted on 10/13/2010 3:04:13 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
KEWL, didn’t know google gave access to the book. I just got angry enough to pull it off my shelf and type it out, lol.
Dr. Conspiracy October 30, 2010 at 6:35 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote) #
DancingRabbit: There are so many Founders quoting Vattel during the Convention I cannot list them all
Given that de Vattel’s name is not mentioned once in the records of the Constitutional convention, I think this pretty much ends the toleration of your lies on this web site.
You’re banned.”
The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand’s Records, Volume 3]
GENERAL INDEX
“Vattel, cited, I, 437, 438, (440, 442).”
http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr003452%29%29
Proof the web site ObamaConspiracy is attempting to hide the truth regarding Vattel and protecting an illegal Obama
Question...have you seen that Vattel is discussed in GB Parliament in the 1700’s?
The parliamentary register; or, History of the proceedings and debates of ... By Great Britain. Parliament
Jay to the President of congress Nov 24, 1785
also contains this SCOTUS opinion from Cheif Justice Jay:
It will be sufficient to observe, briefly, that the sovereignties in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the prince as the sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance, and excludes the idea of his being on an equal footing with a subject, either in a court of justice or elsewhere. That system contemplates him as being the fountain of honor and authority; and from his grace and grant derives all franchises, immunities, and privileges ; it is easy to perceive that such a sovereign could not be amenable to a court of justice, or subjected to judicial control and actual constraint. It was of necessity, therefore, that suability became incompatible with such sovereignty. Besides, the prince having all the executive powers, the judgment of the courts would, in fact, be only monitory, not mandatory, to him, and a capacity to be advised is a distinct thing from a capacity to be sued. The same feudal ideas run through all their jurisprudence, and constantly remind us of the distinction between the prince and the subject. No such ideas obtain here; at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people ; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects (unless the African slaves among us may be so called), and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow-citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.
From the differences existing between feudal sovereignties and governments founded on compacts, it necessarily follows that their respective prerogatives must differ.
Vattel Sec-214 Naturalization
A nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society. This is called naturalization... Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.
“Vattel, cited, I, 437, 438, (440, 442).”
So we have Vattel cited in Vol 1 of Farrand's Records and on those pages they are talking about whom are the members of the society & in what respect are the states sovereign as to those individuals whom reside in those states in regards to the federal government.
Then in Vol 3 of Farrand's Records they have entered for the record, “John Jay to George Washington(3)” permit me to hint whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check...that the commander in chief of the american army shall not be given, nor devolve on, any but a natural born citizen. (3)”Documentary History of the Constitution
Hey Dr CON, I thought you didn’t banned people? Dancing Rabbit gave you too much truth for you to handle. You’re a hypocrite. What are you afraid of CON?
DrConspire is a blithering OhBama Skollar..the site was set up..to spread lies regarding the illegal Obama and his natural born citizenship status.
Dr Conspite states..there never existed a rule..two citizen parents to be a citizen,....
Heck..Aristotle..said..a citizen is defined to be one of whom both parents are the citizens..it is in the Politics of Aritostle.
It is certain..there is an intenional effort by this illegal administration..to distort the truth, to mislead the public...
It's not the judge's job to make immature comments that expose his or her personal frustration. All they need to do is address the points of law. Like I said, the part you quoted doesn't reflect well on the judge's impartiality or professionalism.
Michelle, I appreciate that you want to defend your husband, but you need to reply with substance instead of reflexive denial.
Here you are DR CON in April saying that you were banned after you posted at FR. We see that you are into revisionist history. Well, that's what we expect from you anyways.
There must have been a half dozen to a dozen posts of yours bragging that you were banned at FR. You said it so much, you used it as an advertising gimmick for your website to get the FR rejects to post at your website.
he's afraid that this will come out:
The American Journal of Legal History (1974)
English concepts of subjectship and community encompassed a central ambiguity: on the one hand, society and government theoretically rested on individual consent and compact; on the other hand, the legal status and obligations of the individual remained natural, perpetual, and immutable. Across the Atlantic, circumstances almost immediately led men to attenuate and modify the concept of natural allegiance that was part of their legal and intellectual heritage.
Dr. Conspiracy October 30, 2010 at 6:35 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote) #
DancingRabbit: There are so many Founders quoting Vattel during the Convention I cannot list them all
Given that de Vattel’s name is not mentioned once in the records of the Constitutional convention, I think this pretty much ends the toleration of your lies on this web site.
You’re banned.”
Dr. Conspiracy October 30, 2010 at 6:35 pm Dr.
Conspiracy(Quote) #
DancingRabbit: There are so many Founders quoting Vattel during the Convention I cannot list them all
King
Madison
Yeats
All part of one conversation. That wasn’t so hard.
This is why I’m banning you for lying.
Dr. Conspire OhObama Skolla reads FR and realizes hes an idiot..stating Vattel
“Vattel’s name is not mentioned once in the records of the Constitutional convention”
Not to look stupid..as we know he really..is..he edits his post banning dancing rabbit..
note the time is 6:35pm on both posts.
It’s not the judge’s job to make immature comments that expose his or her personal frustration. All they need to do is address the points of law. Like I said, the part you quoted doesn’t reflect well on the judge’s impartiality or professionalism.
At least Judge Lamberth didn’t fine Orly Taitx $20,000 like Judge Clay R. Land did. Nor did he force her to pay court costs like the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals did to Mario Apuzzo.
It’s interesting that both Judge Lamberth and Judge Land are conservative justices. Lamberth was a Reagan appointee and Land was a George W. Bush apppointee.
Thalia petasata iterum, or, A foot journey from Dresden to Venice pg 4
(excerpt)
Under the wooded knoll, then down again
And up again and down, and up at last
To Johnsbaeh, where at twelve o clock we dine
On cold roast veal and bread and lettuce-salad.
“You ‘re surely not a German, Sir,” I said
To a guest dining at a table near us
On cervelat-wurst and one glass of brandy,
Soon followed by a second and a third.
“I'm a Graubiindner from the upper Rheinthal,”
Smiling said he, “and you ‘re an Englishman”.
“Not badly guessed,” said I, “though not quite right.
I've not indeed the square Teutonic forehead,
Wide-sprawling mouth and solid chin and cheek,
And can affirm without yaw-yawing till
My own or hearer's stomach ‘s on the point
Of yielding-up its last meal, yet I ‘m not
Therefore an Englishman. A deep salt sea —
Alas! not broad enough — my little island
Divides from England. There in olden time,
Under their own laws, with their own religion,
Manners and customs and ancestral language,
Lived, harming no man, happily the Irish.
Obviously you don't or why are you here?
What other option do they have at this point? Judge Lind won’t allow an honest assessment of that. She used her own un-cited criteria for what constitutes a lawful order rather than citing the elements of Article 92, which clearly says that an order is not lawful if it is contrary to the Constitution.
If a judge isn’t even going to look at the legal definitions - choosing instead to pull stuff out of her hat - then what other option does the counsel for Lakin have, unless they are going to consign him to prison?
IIRC, Vallely and some others wanted to have the whole eligibility issue taken out of the case because it was painfully clear to everyone that no judges at this point are either willing or able to treat the issue correctly, and they were concerned that it would set a bad precedent if we bring this before judges who will not give it the earnestness it deserves.
IOW, the judges are so crooked that we better not push it now because we’ll end up with garbage we have to obey forever.
This could well be the reason that Justice Thomas says they are “evading” the eligibility issue. They don’t want to have to rule on it at a time when they - for whatever reason - feel they can’t do the job right. They’d rather evade it than have to give a wrong ruling that the country would be stuck with.
Why else would they “evade” it - and then admit outright that it’s what they’re doing?
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.