Login
![]() |
|
![]() |
06-02-2011, 06:57 PM | #23 | |
.
9
Rep 666
Posts |
Quote:
Like I said, if you and the Republitards want to be the folks denying a Black President what was allowed for a White President based upon some minor parsing, don't go crying about "race cards". If you find yourself quacking like a duck, stop quacking. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-02-2011, 07:01 PM | #24 | |
Brigadier General
![]() ![]() 320
Rep 4,759
Posts |
Quote:
For your information, in my arguments referencing this case before, I was citing the majority opinion in that right of blood is insufficient without also right of soil in the establishment of natural born citizenship. The older, white-haired man in 2008 could not be a natural born Citizen of the U.S. because his right of soil was with foreign soil. Yet his case may have been much stronger than Obama's in laying claim to natural born Citizen status. It was certainly much more difficult to argue against than this case of Obama's. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-02-2011, 07:13 PM | #25 | |
Brigadier General
![]() ![]() 320
Rep 4,759
Posts |
Quote:
The SCOTUS decision on Wong Kim Ark did not in any way impugn Vattel. If you have authoritative quotes, primarily from the time of the founding fathers regarding natural born Citizen, that you can present, that would be most welcome. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-02-2011, 07:18 PM | #26 | |
Brigadier General
![]() ![]() 320
Rep 4,759
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-02-2011, 07:22 PM | #27 |
Brigadier General
![]() ![]() 320
Rep 4,759
Posts |
By this line of reasoning, Chester Arthur must have been the victim of racism, trying to remove a white guy from the Presidency.
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-02-2011, 07:37 PM | #28 | |
.
9
Rep 666
Posts |
Quote:
Your childish antics won't change reality. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-02-2011, 07:40 PM | #29 |
.
9
Rep 666
Posts |
If I provide a scan of the original text as the Founding Fathers would have read it, will you concede that Vattel wasn't the source of the phrase Natural Born Citizen, and as such, Vattel's statements cannot be the glossary definition of the phrase?
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-02-2011, 07:41 PM | #30 | |
Brigadier General
![]() ![]() 320
Rep 4,759
Posts |
Quote:
And SCOTUS never dealt with either Arthur's or Obama's citizenship. I wonder if you would support the "lawfully elected" officials if ballot box stuffing were well known, yet the election results were accepted as the end of the line. Last edited by scottwww; 06-02-2011 at 07:46 PM. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-02-2011, 07:52 PM | #31 |
Brigadier General
![]() ![]() 320
Rep 4,759
Posts |
It would be quite welcome to see the scanned pages. Then comparison can be made. As to the source of the exact word "natural born Citizen" you may be able demonstrate that translation was not the source. If in that translation it does not use the words "natural born citizen" as it was found in the images I was able to share, then I would certainly be able to concede that that translation did not contain that translation on those pages. It would lend reasonable support to your argument.
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-02-2011, 08:02 PM | #32 | |
.
9
Rep 666
Posts |
Quote:
"two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization ... citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth" Where have I seen that before? Oh yea... http://www.1addicts.com/forums/showp...9&postcount=14 |
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-02-2011, 08:12 PM | #33 | |
.
9
Rep 666
Posts |
Quote:
I'm going to go out on a limb here, and take you at your word. Try not to let me down... again. Here are scans of the original texts using the phrase "natives or indegenes" which is the direct translation of “Les Naturels ou indegenes”, which is the phrase that Vattel used in his original French writings. The first is Vattel London 1760, the second is Vattel 1787 American Edition. Last edited by 11Series; 06-02-2011 at 08:29 PM. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-02-2011, 08:37 PM | #34 |
First Lieutenant
![]() ![]() ![]() 9
Rep 335
Posts |
I hope nobody's just figuring this out. Birthers, almost by definition, have all gone off their rockers long ago.
They're victims of partisan psychosis. Any facts that don't fit their political desires will be relentlessly questioned long after any rational person has left the conversation out of frustration. Give up, it's no use dealing with them on their dubious level.
__________________
![]() 2007 ///M roadster Last edited by mikeinsf; 06-02-2011 at 08:46 PM. |
Appreciate
0
|
06-02-2011, 08:50 PM | #35 | |
Brigadier General
![]() ![]() 320
Rep 4,759
Posts |
Quote:
With support for your argument, what do you have in historical documents that clarifies the different types of citizen and more specifically "natural born Citizen"? |
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-02-2011, 08:50 PM | #36 |
.
9
Rep 666
Posts |
So let's review. Vattel is out for two reasons:
1) He couldn't have coined the phrase "Natural Born Citizen", because he wrote his stuff in French, and the founding fathers would have needed a time machine to read the first english translation in 1797 that used that phrase. 2) The 1797 translation of Vattel (that stole the phrase "Natural Born Citizen" FROM the US constitution) was heard by SCOTUS in the case of Wong Kim Ark, and SCOTUS rejected it. Double burn, Vattel is out. |
Appreciate
0
|
06-02-2011, 08:52 PM | #37 | |
.
9
Rep 666
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-02-2011, 09:12 PM | #38 | |
Brigadier General
![]() ![]() 320
Rep 4,759
Posts |
Quote:
Now, will you concede without further evidence that Vattel is a highly regarded authority on citizenship and that the founding fathers were well aware of his writings, respected his writings, and referred to them in crafting legislation and the founding documents? And what do you have to present to establish how the founders understood the words "natural born Citizen" which they prominently included in three requirements for qualification to be President? As it was adopted without debate, certainly it was understood by all. Support your conclusions with evidence. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-02-2011, 09:13 PM | #40 |
Lieutenant
![]() ![]() ![]() 8
Rep 530
Posts |
The only thing I'll add about this whole "Natural Born Citizen" thing is imagine if in this country you always HAD to have both parents born here for a child to be a natural born citizen? With such a nation of immigrants, I imagine there wouldn't have been too many natural born citizens.
__________________
08 328xi - SOLD | 08 S5 | 02 S4
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-02-2011, 09:27 PM | #41 | |
Brigadier General
![]() ![]() 320
Rep 4,759
Posts |
Quote:
2) SCOTUS didn't rule on natural born Citizen. They ruled on citizen. Their ruling depended upon the 14th Amendment and not upon what existed at the time of the founding fathers. The ruling could be seen as playing a role in the case of whether citizen at birth is equal to "natural born Citizen". Perhaps even without the 14th Amendment Wong Kim Ark would have been ruled a citizen, but that would be very speculative to discuss. The ruling is appropriate to discuss here, but not in relation to the original meaning of "natural born Citizen" as understood by the founders. It is appropriate in the discussion of how the meaning of "natural born Citizen" may have been modified by implementation of the 14th Amendment. Obviously, making that connection would be to argue for jus soli alone as qualifying not only as citizen (again by the 14th Amendment) but also as natural born citizen. I don't see how it could be argued successfully that the 14th Amendment (or any court ruling or any statute) in any way affected the "natural born Citizen" clause. Vattel is not out. You presented interesting information about a couple translations in use at the the time of question. It is certainly a piece of the puzzle. There are many more pieces to consider. Though Vattel is not out, Law of Nations is one of the sources to consider, and a very significant one at that. Even if you reject the connection between "natural born Citizen" and Vattel, certainly you recognize (or maybe you don't) the significance his words had on influencing how nations regard citizenship of any kind, including native, natural, and naturalized. You may want to exclude Vattel, but the founders did not. And his words in translation are regarded as authority in many American historical documents. If you would rather not discuss Vattel any further, then don't. Vattel is not "out". If you have other authorities you can quote, then please do. Last edited by scottwww; 06-02-2011 at 09:53 PM. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-02-2011, 09:37 PM | #42 | |
.
9
Rep 666
Posts |
Quote:
I knew I could trust you to weasel out of your promise. Vattel was NOT used regarding citizenship. I just proved that, and you just weaseled out of your promise. You are dishonest and a liar. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-02-2011, 09:40 PM | #43 | |
.
9
Rep 666
Posts |
Quote:
I established that "natural born citizen" never existed in VATTEL's work prior to 1797. I know where the phrase came from. And Vattel is out. I reject Vattel's influence on citizenship, so did SCOTUS. That is why their ruling is significant. They rejected Vattel on the question of ALL citizenship. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|