Indeed it is. Rail about logic then marginalize it as high school naivete when it is used. Use generous quantities of ad hominem and ridicule while failing to address, in a calm and rational manner, the key issues. It is a style designed to prevent, rather than foster, thought and learning. It also makes it unprofitable to attempt to engage such a person in rational, friendly debate. The best you can hope for is to put forward your best arguments and let the readers decide for themselves. If I am a judge and these are the briefs upon which I must decide, I will certainly not hold credible an argument riddled with logical errors even a high schooler should be able to spot and avoid.
Don't flatter yourself.
Instead, get over yourself and realize that those you defend do not deserve much of any defense, from anyone.
Face it: This is a STUPID argument, and it will not be resolved through the Courts, as the Courts WISELY do not feel it is their proper role.
Liberalism wants nearly all things decided by the Courts but that will not happen with this issue.
Therefore: IT WILL BE RESOLVED POLITICALLY!
And my case is that it HAS been resolved, as no State, on ELECTOR from any State, and NO MEMBER OF CONGRESS, agrees with the Radical Birthers.
An “appeal to authority” is entirely appropriate and even REQUIRED when dealing with those who will not submit their inflated egos to a dose of reality.
From an attorney, who I admit is an Obama supporter, on the webpage that I linked:
““Remember that the Minor Court said that “some authorities” maintain that a child born in the country of non-citizen parents was a “citizen” and that it had doubts about such a proposition.”
Actually, the Minor Court said that there were doubts that children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents were natural born. Of course, I think everyone would have doubts about such a proposition as pretty much all authority agreed that there were exceptions to the locality of birth rule under the common law for certain parents and there was much debate about such exceptions in America at such time.
“I am sure the Minor Court was well aware of all of the pre-1875 “authorities” you cite and discounted them as the final word on who may be a “citizen” of the United States.”
Gee, that’s a persuasive argument. The court rather said it was not looking into the issue. The citations above only include the most famous and influential scholars, treatises and judges of the early republic. Good luck arguing they didn’t get the memo. We are still waiting for you to cite one early authority that contradicts them.
“Other than citing and commenting upon Wong, you do not cite any U.S. Supreme Court cases which support your theory that the Framers used ENGLISH and not AMERICAN common law to define who would be eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military of the new Constitutional Republic.”
Wong is the only case that thoroughly looked at the issue and hence is the ultimate authority. You can also see the opinions of Justice Story, Curtis and Swayne above. I also could have cited Chief Justice Marshall defining persons born in the US as citizens or McCreery v. Somerville calling children of aliens native born citizens. If you actually read Supreme Court decision you would know that the court looks to all such early authority to determine the original understanding with some of the persons cited above amongst the most frequently cited.
“I have cited several but you never mention them other than to say that I have misinterpreted them or that what they say is dicta.”
Sorry, none of the cases you have cited even remotely support your theory. Are you still citing cases that cite Vattel on issues totally unrelated to native american citizenship and claim they have some significance? Do you still make these claims after it was pointed out the same Justices cited elsewhere specifically looked to the English common law view with respect to native citizenship. That is a good way to get sanctioned. Are you still claiming the citation of Vattel by one Justice in Dred Scott is meaningful when another Justice in the same case embraced the English common law and it was that Justice who was later cited by the 39th Congress and a majority of the court on such point. Not only have we seen no supreme court opinion that supports your theory, we have seen no authority at all other than the view of one congressman long after the federal convention, one dissenting opinion and a law review article that was rejected by the legal mainstream.
“I like how you tell everybody what Wong allegedly says about “natural born Citizen” but of course in your mind that is not dicta.”
Whether dicta or not, it is the only Supreme Court majority that directly addresses the application of natural born status to the children of aliens which is the only relevant question with respect to Obama. It is thus the most substantial authority we have.
“I also like how you and others here equate an Article II “natural born Citizen” with a Fourteenth Amendment born “citizen of the United States,” in effect ignoring and thereby nullify critical parts of the Article II presidential eligibility clause, i.e., the words “natural born.”
Wong and the legislative history make clear that the 14th amendment was simply defining “natural born.” The court, if you actually read the decision, makes clear they mean the same thing.
“Also, Wong only defined what a “citizen of the United States” is.”
No, it defined “natural born citizen” and cited authority specifically defining “natural born citizen.” I see that when a court has quoted Vattel you claim the court takes ownership of all of such quote. Accordingly then, you must agree that Wong takes ownership of its quotes of Justice Curtis and Swayne which unambiguously define natural born citizen. Also, Wong’s tells us the English common law rules governed citizenship both before and after the 14th amendment and under such common law any citizen at birth was by definition “natural born.” You really need to do more research on this.
“When referring to a “natural born Citizen,” it cited and quoted from Minor v. Happersett.”
I think you should actually read Wong. It cited Minor first for the proposition that “natural born citizen” should be defined by the common law (which it later made clear was the English common law about 12 times). It also cited Minor to point out that the Slaugherhouse Court, largely the same court as Minor, did not mean to abandon the common law interpretation. The Wong court had already defined natural born citizen and the common law rule by that point in the decision in accordance with the English common law.
“The best for you that I can say about your string of citations is that they support the definition of a “citizen of the United States” that existed at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, as explicated by Wong Kim Ark.”
Actually, many of them specifically defined “natural born citizen” in accordance with the English common law. What these citations actually say is that every court, scholar and treatise by the most influential legal authorities in the early republic support our English common law interpretation. If you actually read Supreme Court cases, you would know that this is exactly the authorities the court will look to to determine the original understanding. We are still waiting for you to cite one early authority to support your theory, other than your misrepresentation of cases that have nothing to do with native citizenship.
“You will note that the commentators cite no authority when they refer to “natural born Citizen.”
Actually, many of them do if you read their works. However, just because a famous scholar who lived through the revolution and was a respected expert on all relevant law in the early republic doesn’t cite authoritiy doesn’t mean their opinion isn’t substantial legal authority as the early treatises most cited by the Supreme Court seldom cite such authority. I guess you will stop citing Bingham and Minor since they don’t cite authority. I guess you should stop citing Vattel since he doesn’t cite authority for his opinion.
“Finally, may I ask you why you and your followers would support a theory of who may be eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military which only weakens our nation?”
Your issue is with the founders themselves as it is clear from the convention that most delegates, and the most important founders, were not very concerned about foreign influence and no one in the convention raised parentage or Vattel. If you actually look to the citiations above, you will see that Madison, Kent, Story, Bouvier and every other legal authority in the early republic, without exception, defined allegiance by place of birth. Accordingly, the founding generation did not consider any native born to be foreigners. If you don’t know this, you need to do a lot more research.