Originally Posted by 11Series
Other bullcrap that Vattel believed in:
"§ 122. Right of carrying off women.
… A nation cannot preserve and perpetuate itself, except by propagation. A nation of men has, therefore, a right to procure women, who are absolutely necessary to its preservation; and if its neighbours, who have a redundancy of females, refuse to give some of them in marriage to those men, the latter may justly have recourse to force"
This is seriously your guy you are backing in this debate? Do you also believe a nation has the right to force women from other nations into being sex slaves by force? Really? You are backing the sex slave trader?
But the thing that really kills your argument is reality.
In reality, the US has ALREADY dealt with the issue when Chester A. Arthur was elected US President. Because "At the time of the birth of the future president, Arthur's father was an Irish subject of the United Kingdom" just like Obama's father.
History has already played out. You are wrong. You are dead in the water.
If you and the right-wing Republitards wants to be the folks who are seen denying a Black President what was allowed for a White President, don't go crying about "race cards". If you find yourself quacking like a duck, stop quacking.
There is no reason that a person must accept every argument of one with whom they agree on some things. I am not well read on Vattel. I am discovering how well his work has been used in U.S. and international law. Do you believe Vattel is widely discredited.
As you, I have also done a small amount of reading on Chester Arthur in the last couple weeks. His case is the most similar to Obama's. It was the Democrat party that supported the fight against Arthur. Their lawyer made some errors in his argument that caused him to lose credibility. And Arthur was well liked. Everything comes down to a popularity contest, but the argument is best made on firm support. Also, Arthur had a stronger case for his citizenship than Obama. His father, though not a citizen at Chester's birth, was a permanent resident of the U.S. as evidenced by his remaining here and in fact becoming a U.S. citizen. None of that was true of Obama Sr. So, just as Arthur's case never faced judgement, and Obama's likely never will, the court of public opinion may still hear the case render a different verdict.
And for what it's worth, Arthur ascended to the Presidency from the Vice Presidency. He was unsuccessful at gaining his party's nomination for re-election. He died about 1-1/2 years later.
How closely do you want to tie Obama's fate to Arthur's?