Posted on 09/20/2015 1:49:44 PM PDT by VinL
LOL!
wardaddy, I was trying to be funny. You said if Muslims were elected there would be no constitution, and I said thee must be 5 Muslims now on the supreme court. I was thinking of the recent rulings.
I guess it wasn’t funny- sorry.
"Urbandale, Iowa (CNN)Donald Trump on Saturday responded to a question from CNN about whether Muslims pose a danger to the country, saying: "I love the Muslims. I think they're great people."
I’m sitting here thinking, “Do I really need to go back and explain..”
LOL, never mind.
You don't have to explain anything, a reread on your part might help though....that is if you want to quit embarrassing yourself.
Other then that, I'm done for the night, have a good evening.
Bookmark
Well, I guess I committed a microaggression against your sensitive flower self.
This is all turning out to be an interesting social study, I’ll say that.
Well, Ted you have two choices, begin legislation to make it unconstitutional*, or forget any hope of this vote for president.
* There is a clear and irrefutable argument that any religion which requires and demands that it supersede civil authority is by definition incompatible and irreconcilable with the US Constitution.
I’ve read you #304, as well as terycarl’s duplicate replies at #322 and #327. So far you haven’t replied to him/her.
I’ll look for your reply to him/her as to where you found this oath of obedience you claim Catholics take that you would have us believe is the same as a Muslim’s requirement to obey Sharia law.
I stand corrected. I was looking at a different article (one of the first links posted) not the CNN interview.
Disappointed. It’s not a question of whether a Muslim should be allowed to run, but whether a Muslim is someone Americans should vote for. Cruz’ comment is what I’d expect from a ‘rat.
Before Obama I had never seriously read about our history. I did science and mathematics. dismissed soft topics, and was ignorant. I suspect many of us who identify as conservatives are like me. it was clear that Obama's background was being concealed, and very skillfully, which made him a puzzle to be solved. Obama inspired me to learn the truth.
The fact that our first law book, Vattel's Law of Nations,was inspired by the co-inventor of the calculus, Gottlieb Leibniz, made me even more curious. I read Law of Nations (very reasonably priced at Amazon) and was amazed to read most of the principles we assume to be true clearly explained in this 18th century compendium. Law of Nations is what is called "common law" because we commoner's believe these truths. Many of its concepts come from Roman and even Greek law.
A book by a Swiss philosopher in 1758 constitutes what I would, in one of my professions, describe as the set of requirement specifications for constructing a new nation, complete with "Use Cases" that help to explain the purposed of a particular principle. To be sure, not every one of Vattel's actions has been included. But most of them have, accompanies by lucid and concise explanations. Chief Justice John Marshall cited Vattel in The Venus, 12 U.S. 253, as the most concise source for the definition of what it means to be a natural born citizen.
Vattel was Washington's most important reference when he was executing the Constitution. The only book on his desk when he took office in New York in 1790 was Law of Nations, borrowed from a local lending library since Washington's belongings and library had not yet followed him. Hamilton wrote to Washington in a letter addressing a territorial issue - Hamilton was our first Treasury Secretary and probably Washington's most trusted advisor - that among the sources guiding the decisions made by our founders Vattel was the most trusted.
Jefferson created our first law school at William and Mary and made Vattel our first required legal text. Franklin read Vattel in its original French when it was published, and prevailed upon the publisher to generate a quick English translation so that he could send it to his colleagues already planning for secession in the 1760s. Franklin did just that, and one or two of his Law of Nations translations were kept in private libraries and read by our founders.
What really came as a surprise, and I am almost embarrassed to admit it since when reading mathematics one pays special attention to definitions, the Constitution doesn't contain term definitions. When you read again and again "...had our framers wanted to create a special class of citizen they would have defined the term!" No.
Madison explained why there are not definitions in the Constitution. If you've looked at photos of galaxies whose light can be over ten billion years old and wondered "how do we know the physical laws we use applied ten billion years ago?" If we don't assume that time is invariant, we can't interpret galaxies using the tools we have. If we don't read the Constitution applying the term definitions as understood by our framers, its original meanings are lost.
Madison explained (Mark Levin quoted him in Liberty and Tyranny, p37) that if we don't interpret the Constitution using the common language and law understood by its framers (the very language of Chief Justice Waite in Minor v Happersett), the Constitution will lose its intended meanings. Whenever I read "because it is not defined in the Constitution", I am forewarned of ignorance or misdirection almost certain to follow. Only "treason" has its common-law meaning modified in the Constitution. That probably has to do with Treason's overuse when applied to the British Monarchy. Treason is clarified as "Treason against the United States". But the rule is that definitions are what commoners assume they are, and the Supreme Court owns the right to validate the interpretations when necessary - original jurisdiction.
The Vattel definition for natural born citizenship appeared, as I know you know, and as you may have taught me six or seven years ago when I learned much from the genuine experts then sparring with the Obots on FR, in about six Supreme Court cases as "dictum". Dictum is commentary not essential to the decision. Before Minor v. Happersett in 1875, Virginia Minor's citizenship before the 14th Amendment needed to be clarified, Citizenship differed from state-to-state. The 14th Amendment dealt with the unavoidable issue of citizenship for slaves, in both the South and the North.
The only constitutional citizens before the 14th Amendment wee natural born citizens. Virginia was natural born, in Missouri to parents who were citizens, so the decision about suffrage could be decided. That required nailing the common-law definition, which is why Minor is so important, Suffrage for women would await the nineteenth amendment in 1920. Minor v. Happersett clarified what the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection's clause didn't apply to, but was meaningless unless Virginia was a citizen, which she was only because she was a natural born citizen. Minor v. Happersett never mentions Vattel, but uses exactly the Vattel definition. That is the protocol for creating positive law. There is nothing to cite. The Minor decision, depending upon the definition, was unanimous.
This history is complex. There is similar complexity around the anchor-baby interpretation hung upon the 14th Amendment. That is why even conservatives "ignore" the issue. Many conservatives are working to pay the taxes that support the majority (just barely) of employment eligible who don't, and the illegals who don't. They don't have time to do the research. To his credit, Trump, about whom I still have many questions, opened that door. Too bad that Cruz, with all his obvious brilliance, has not used it to explain our legal history and put himself in line for a Supreme Court appointment.
Having written more than I intended on a sweltering day let me add that the best explanations of these issues I've found are on attorney Mario Apuzzo's blog at puzo1.blogspot.com. If Leo Donofrio's, site is still alive, his explorations of the 14th Amendment are amazing. He decided that the corruption was so deep that there was nothing more he could do.
Donofrio and his sister discovered the presumably burned naturalization documents of Chester Arthur's father, proving that Chester was the only other ineligible president. Chester almost certainly knew of his legal problem, having all his personal papers burned just before he died. Chester had a confederate write a book suggesting that Chester was born in Canada, a patent lie since Chester was born in Vermont. Chester created misdirection so that enemies would spend their effort searching for proof that didn't exist. This tactic was deployed by Hillary's Pennsylvania Campaign Chief, Berg, who "discovered" a Kenyan Birth Certificate that never materialized, most likely the emergence of the "Birther" ridicule campaign so clearly prescribed by Hillary's hero, Saul Alinsky.
No you were funny actually
I was obtuse
Well, God Bless you. Here’s the website.
http://www.catholicplanet.com/infallible/promise.htm
And also, here’s a link to the Catechism, which I’m sure- you like me- had pounded into you by the Nuns.
Kinda weaselly there, Ed-— but, I’ve provided the info in a post above- — now, if you wish, please expound on your version of the 2nd Amendment and religious liberty in the United States of America.
Nothing weasley at all... It is you who made a claim that Catholics must take an oath of obedience to the Pope that is the equivalent of a Muslim’s requirement to follow Sharia law. I am not Catholic, but terycal is, and has challenged you to show where you found that oath of obedience which he never saw in his 76 years as a Catholic, including 12 years of Catholic school. It’s up to you to produce your source. Not me, not terycarl. Show it or drop your claim.
As to the other part of your post: I’m not sure what the 2nd Amendment has to do with religious liberty. And I’m beginning to believe you’re not well versed in the Constitution. Or much else.
sorry, FR etiquette requires us to copy any other FReeper mentioned in a post. Please see #375 and 376, above.
And, as I indicated in my last post, I replied to her #322.
Excuses all gone now, Ed— Time to enthrall us all with your exposition on religious liberty.
Or- are you going to do what you do best?
LOL-—LOL-— LOL
She can’t help you weasel out, ED!!!!!
Ha!Ha! Ha!
Need. Once again, they are setting their prevented agenda.
THE CORRECT TOPIC IS: “CHRISTIANS ARE BEING SLAUGHTERED WORLDWIDE AND WE ARE GIVING A TEPID RESPONSE”
Regardless of what the 0 is, he is not responding appropriately !
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.