For the record, it was a Fox News Poll (you can read the wording of the question yourself, if you care - I'm betting you don't), that showed that 93% of Republican voters felt that an endorsement by 'the Donald' would either hurt or have no effect on them voting for a candidate --- since 'the Donald' wants to be so factual here. That breaks down to 62% wouldn't care, and 31% would persuade them against a candidate with Trump's endorsement; only 6% felt a Trump endorsement would be favorable. I would argue that Trump's obsession as a birther hasn't helped his credibility, although a poll among Republicans, as of September 2011 still show a significant birther component in the right wing base. Ahhh, those fact-averse right wingers! They are delusional, crazy thinking out-of-touch ideologues personified!
So far, only the Nut Gingrich has indicated a willingness to participate in a Trump moderated debate. I think it is possible, and utterly hilarious, if no other candidates are willing to show up. It should be dawning on the GOP wannabe's that they may be reaching a candidates point of saturation with the likely primary voters, along with the realization that those debates are providing them more opportunities to shoot themselves in the proverbial foot instead of improving their acceptance among voters.
The Fox poll is just one more example that shows the right doesn't like any of the candidates running in 2012 very much; none of the above, and the names of individuals who are adamantly NOT running had more support than the actual candidates have.
And when it comes to who has the greater influence in the upper echelons of the Republican Party, and the id-jot tea partiers for that matter, Rove controls more money in his PACs than Trump will ever direct. But then Rove's preferred candidate was Rick Perry, apparently he hoped for another Shrub. Perry has gone downhill in public opinion, including in Texas, faster than an Olympic skier on a snowy mountain slope. There is a big Right Wing power vacuum out there, and it should be very entertaining to watch what happens to it in the next 11 months.
From MSNBC.com:
Seriously - isn't there a strong resemblance between one of the earlier incarnations of Bozo the Clown, and the Donald? I wonder what shoe size he wears, and how it compares to clown shoes? Look at this recent photo of Trump, and this image of Bozo the clown, courtesy of tv acres; it's not just the hair, there is something about their expression that seems strongly similar...
Explain to me exactly what a "natural born citizen" is.
ReplyDeleteCould it be that since reality television is more popular than elections, the candidates have decided to merge the two?
ReplyDeleteThis campaign season's lineup:
"How to Be Groped by a Millionaire"
"The Amazing Race for Washington"
"Survivor, D.C."
"The Crook's Apprentice"
"Big Bother"
and so on.
All the while, America's favorite opinion-poll reader, Mitt Romney, will let us know the score.
No, you explain, exactly. And while you're at it, make sure that you show your primary sources and why they prove that President Obama is not a U.S. citizen. SingTFU is your other option.
ReplyDelete"No, you explain, exactly. And while you're at it, make sure that you show your primary sources and why they prove that President Obama is not a U.S. citizen. SingTFU is your other option."
ReplyDeleteTranslation: I can't explain exactly what a 'natural born citizen" is because...
Anonymous, thanks for admitting that you have no fucking idea what you are talking about.
ReplyDelete"Anonymous, thanks for admitting that you have no fucking idea what you are talking about."
ReplyDeleteYou know everything, as you've told us, so, go ahead, tell me exactly what a 'natural born citizen" is.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteThere's skeptical, and then there's dumbass. Turn around, and look for the line that you crossed.
Greg,
ReplyDeleteI'll gladly read your definition of a 'natural born citizen'.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteAs the text of the U. S. Constitution says, the president must either be a natural born citizen or must have been a citizen at the time that the Constitution was adopted (that's to cover a number of Republican candidates and office holders of late). The implication is that the person has to be born within U. S. territory. The Canal Zone, for example, was acceptable, as is the State of Hawaii.
I think the amswer Anon is looking for is that there is no legal definition of what "natural born citizen" means. To my knowledge, the courts have never been asked to rule on it, but I assume Laci would know for sure.
ReplyDeleteGreg, but what is a 'natural born citizen?
ReplyDeleteConsider:
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
Consider:
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
Consider:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
So, who is a natural born citizen and what makes him such?
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteYou're correct to say that the term isn't given a clear definition in the immediate text, but the way that it's been interpreted is someone who was born within U.S. territory--so Guam should be O.K., as would a U.S. embassy.
My question to you is: What constitutes being a 'natural born citizen'?
ReplyDeleteAs the Constitution states, a citizen may be a Representative or a Senator, but only a 'natural born citizen' may be President or Vice President.
Do you consider yourself a citizen, or a natural born citizen and why?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteMy question to you is: What constitutes being a 'natural born citizen'?
As the Constitution states, a citizen may be a Representative or a Senator, but only a 'natural born citizen' may be President or Vice President.
Do you consider yourself a citizen, or a natural born citizen and why?
I'm a natural born citizen, in that I am the child of U.S. citizens AND I was born here in the U.S.
A natural born citizen has been accepted widely to be any person born in the United States, or born outside the United States to a parent who is a U.S. citizen
Constitutional Topic: Citizenship
Bookmark and Share
Advertisement
The Constitutional Topics pages at the USConstitution.net site are presented to delve deeper into topics than can be provided on the Glossary Page or in the FAQ pages. This Topic Page concerns Citizenship. Citizenship is mentioned in Article 1, Section 2, Article 1, Section 3, Article 1, Section 8, Article 2, Section 1, and in the 14th Amendment and several subsequent amendments.
If you're going to be involved in government in the United States, citizenship is a must. To be a Senator or Representative, you must be a citizen of the United States. To be President, not only must you be a citizen, but you must also be natural-born. Aside from participation in government, citizenship is an honor bestowed upon people by the citizenry of the United States when a non-citizen passes the required tests and submits to an oath.
Natural-born citizen
Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps. The Constitution authorizes the Congress to do create clarifying legislation in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"
Anyone born inside the United States *
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
* There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
continued
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
ReplyDeleteI believe that combination of the 14th amendment plus the additional clarifying legislation cited above settles the citizenship of President Obama, on not one but two pertinent criteria.
Birthers are crazy, and ignorant.
Ooops - forgot to include the pertinent link:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
The 14th identifies 'citizen' as well as the bold stuff you pasted. It does not mention natural born citizen.
ReplyDelete"I'm a natural born citizen, in that I am the child of U.S. citizens AND I was born here in the U.S."
I noticed you used the plural 'citizens' there then went on to say...
"A natural born citizen has been accepted widely to be any person born in the United States, or born outside the United States to a parent who is a U.S. citizen"
'parent' singular.
Why? It takes two to make a baby.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteWhat are you going on about? If you have a point to make, make it. Obama was born in Hawaii. Good enough.
For annoyinghole there is no "answer" that will suffice. Timewasting fucks like annoyinghole have no intention of actually arguing the merits. They like seeing their screeds in print.
ReplyDeleteI was born in the US but live in Italy. I'm a "natural born citizen" I suppose.
ReplyDeleteMy kids were born in Italy and have US Passports. They're just "citizens" I guess.
But what's the point, Anonymous. You like to play hard ball with the others, why don't you just tell us what your point is and quit fuckin' around with us.
Mikeb, because you are a U.S. citizen, although living abroad, your kids are also 'natural born' U.S. citizens; they couldn't get a U.S.passport. They could hold dual citizenship until they are of legal age, and probably could remain so just as Laci did with his UK dual citizenship, if they chose.
ReplyDeleteAw, Anonymous isn't playing hardball with us; he tries to play hardball, but all he succeeds in doing is kneecapping himself with his own bat, and then trips over his dropped 'hard' ball.
ReplyDeleteActually, if MikeB registers his children's births, even though overseas, they can still get US passports.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure if they are Italian citizens, but they can definitely by US citizens given one Parent is a US Citizen.
US recognises Jus Soli (by birth in the Country) and Jus Sanguinis (by family tie) in its citizenship laws.
Greg, I didn't say Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, did I?
ReplyDeleteDemocummie, Why don't you just explain what a natural born citizen is?
DG, I'm still wondering why you used the plural, 'citizens' in your own case of being a natural born citizen and the singular, 'parent' in your next example.
At the time the Constitution was written, were women allowed to vote, participate in legislatures, have any influence or input on the Constitution, or can we agree that it was strictly a white-male dominated society at that point?
Anonahole:
ReplyDeleteIt's been explained by three other people. You're a fucking whanker and, that, I just can't explain--not that it's required.
About three more posts and my point will be made.
ReplyDeleteEmmerich de Vattel was the most popular of all writers on the law of nations in America before, but especially after, the American Revolution. Vattel's {The Law of Nations} arrived, shortly after its publication, in an America, which had already been greatly influenced by Leibniz. No later than 1770, it was used as a textbook in colleges. It was often quoted in speeches before judicial tribunals and legislatures, and used in formulating policy. Following the Revolution, Vattel's influence grew. Vattel was cited far more often than Grotius and Puffendorf, in court proceedings, from 1789 to 1820.
Among those citing Vattel in legal cases and government documents, were Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, James Wilson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, and John Marshall. John Adams, the future delegate to the Continental Congress, second President of the U.S., and father of President John Quincy Adams, recorded in his Diary on Feb. 1, 1763, that after spending the day frivolously, instead of reading and thinking, ``The Idea of M. de Vattel indeed, scowling and frowning, haunted me.'' In 1765, Adams copied into his Diary three statements by Vattel, ``of great use to Judges,'' that laws should be interpreted according to the intent of the author, and every interpretation which leads to absurdity should be rejected. In a letter to the Foreign Minister of Denmark, in 1779, Benjamin Franklin quoted Vattel, and ``his excellent Treatise entitled {Le Droit des Gens.}'' James Madison, as a member of the Continental Congress in 1780, drafted the instructions sent to John Jay, for negotiating a treaty with Spain, which quotes at length from {The Law of Nations.} Jay complained that this letter, which was probably read by the Spanish government, was not in code, and ``Vattel's {Law of Nations,} which I found quoted in a letter from Congress, is prohibited here.'' Later, John Marshall, during his thirty-four years as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, quoted Vattel by far the most among all authors on the law of nations.
The Law of Nations} and The Declaration of Independence
Delegates to the First and Second Continental Congress, which produced the Declaration of Independence, often consulted {The Law of Nations,} as a reference for their discussions. One important reason why the delegates chose to meet in Carpenters Hall, was that the building also housed the Library Company of Philadelphia. The librarian reported that Vattel was one of the main sources consulted by the delegates during the First Continental Congress, which met from Sept. 5 to Oct. 26, 1774. Charles W.F. Dumas, an ardent supporter of the American cause, printed an edition of {The Law of Nations} in 1774, with his own notes illustrating how the book applied to the American situation. In 1770, Dumas had met Franklin in Holland, and was one of Franklin's key collaborators in his European diplomacy. He sent three copies to Franklin, instructing him to send one to Harvard University, and to put one in the Philadelphia library. Franklin sent Dumas a letter, Dec. 9, 1775, thanking him for the gift. Franklin stated, ``I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of
your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept, has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting ...|.''
The study of {The Law of Nations} by the delegates to the Continental Congress, to answer questions ``of the circumstances of a rising state,'' is reflected in the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776.
Dang, I agree completely with a comment by Democommie. This is painful.
ReplyDeleteEmmerich de Vattel's text, "The Law of Nations" was crucial in shaping American thinking about the nature of constitutions.
ReplyDeleteTo this day, Great Britain does not have a written constitution, but instead a collection of laws, customs, and institutions, which can be changed by either the Parliament or the monarchy, or by the ``Venetian'' financiers who are the real power over the British Empire. Consequently, the British constitution remains to this day little more than a mask for the arbitrary power of the oligarchy.
The only place of appeal which the American colonists had for unjust laws was to the King's Privy Council. Attempts by the colonists to argue that actions by the British Monarchy and Parliament were unlawful or unconstitutional would be stymied, if they stayed within this legal framework which was essentially arbitrary. Although Vattel praised the British constitution for providing a degree of freedom and lawfulness not seen in most of the German states, his principles of constitutional law were entirely different from the British constitutional arrangements. Consequently, the American colonists attacked the foundation of the King and Parliament's power, by demanding that Vattel's principles of constitutional law be the basis for interpreting the British constitution.
American writers quoted {The Law of Nations} on constitutional law, almost immediately after the book's publication. In 1764, James Otis of Massachusetts argued, in one of the leading pamphlets of the day, ``The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved,'' that the colonial charters were constitutional arrangements. He then quoted Vattel, that the right to establish a constitution lies with the nation as a whole, and the Parliament lacked the right to change the fundamental principles of the British Constitution. Boston revolutionary leader Samuel Adams wrote in 1772, ``Vattel tells us plainly and without hesitation, that `the supreme legislative cannot change the constitution,' `that their authority does not extend so far,' and `that they ought to consider the fundamental laws as sacred, if the nation has not, in very express terms, given them power to change them.'|'' In a debate with the Colonial Governor of Massachusetts, in 1773, John Adams quoted Vattel that the parliament does not have the power to change the constitution.
The adoption of a constitution, by the Constitutional Congress in 1787, based on Leibnizian principles rather than British legal doctrine, was certainly not inevitable. However, British legal experts such as Blackstone, who argued that the Parliament and King could change the constitution, were increasingly recognized by the Americans as proponents of arbitrary power. The early revolutionary leaders' emphasis on Vattel as the authority on constitutional law, with his conception that a nation must choose the best constitution to ensure its perfection and happiness, had very fortunate consequences for the United States and the world, when the U.S. Constitution was later written
The term Natural born Citizen appears in our Constitution, in Article 1, Section 2, with these words, “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”
ReplyDeleteBefore the Constitution the closest reference we have to Natural Born Citizen is from the legal treatise “the Law of Nations,” written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758. In book one chapter 19,
§ 212. Of the citizens and natives.
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
Brilliant, Anonymnous, use a book from well before the Declaration of Independence, let alone the Constitution was written.
ReplyDeleteTell me, Anonymous, why this is not a legally valid source for understanding United States immigration law?
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteIn Jewish tradition, a Jew is a child of a mother who is also a Jew. Paternal lineage isn't always the favored line. If your argument is to be accepted, we'll have to throw out a century of women's rights in this country, since your argument makes the father the only parent who matters. Is that what you want?
Jeez pooch, I don't know, maybe because:
ReplyDeleteAmong those citing Vattel in legal cases and government documents, were Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, James Wilson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, and John Marshall. John Adams, the future delegate to the Continental Congress, second President of the U.S., and father of President John Quincy Adams, recorded in his Diary on Feb. 1, 1763, that after spending the day frivolously, instead of reading and thinking, ``The Idea of M. de Vattel indeed, scowling and frowning, haunted me.'' In 1765, Adams copied into his Diary three statements by Vattel, ``of great use to Judges,'' that laws should be interpreted according to the intent of the author, and every interpretation which leads to absurdity should be rejected. In a letter to the Foreign Minister of Denmark, in 1779, Benjamin Franklin quoted Vattel, and ``his excellent Treatise entitled {Le Droit des Gens.}'' James Madison, as a member of the Continental Congress in 1780, drafted the instructions sent to John Jay, for negotiating a treaty with Spain, which quotes at length from {The Law of Nations.} Jay complained that this letter, which was probably read by the Spanish government, was not in code, and ``Vattel's {Law of Nations,} which I found quoted in a letter from Congress, is prohibited here.'' Later, John Marshall, during his thirty-four years as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, quoted Vattel by far the most among all authors on the law of nations.
Actually, there's a more practical reason for the mother being the important person--she gives birth.
ReplyDeleteThe father can lay claim to a child, but the mother was the only parent (pre-DNA testing) who was definite.
Also, for a person to say they were the son of a woman meant they didn't know who their father was.
So, in the Bible, when Jesus is being called the "Son of Mary", the people are calling him a bastard!
Anonymous, you obviously don't know your constitution,
ReplyDeleteArticle VI:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Anything written prior to that is pretty much irrelevant as anything other than a historical document.
"If your argument is to be accepted, we'll have to throw out a century of women's rights in this country, since your argument makes the father the only parent who matters. Is that what you want?"
ReplyDeleteThis why I asked earlier, do you accept the fact that at the time the Constitution was written women had no say or part in legal issues and it was dominated by the white male.
It seems that the position of this blog is that a female citizen has a kid with a Mexican national who has no loyalty or allegiance to the US, their kid, little Jose, can be President of the US and is a natural born citizen. Clearly, that is not what the founders had in mind.
I would also argue that the founders were influenced by Vattel and not by some progressive socialists or womens' rights groups.
That's like saying the Welfare clause they wrote approved of the welfare system we have today.
Anonymous, your point is bullshit.
ReplyDeleteThe United States recognises that if someone is born there--whether or not their parents are citizens--they are a natural born US Citizen.
The Congressional Research Service has stated that the weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion indicates that the term means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth," including any child born "in" the United States (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.
You can argue what you want, but that is the law.
If Little Jose is born in the US, he is a US Citizen even if his parents are illegal immigrants.
If you don't like that, change the constitution.
Or get the Supreme Court justices to come out with a 5-4 ruling to that effect.
That works best if you have millions of dollars backing you.
You lot seem to like that way of amending the Constitution.
"If Little Jose is born in the US, he is a US Citizen even if his parents are illegal immigrants."
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying he isn't citizen, I'm saying he isn't a natural born citizen.
Yes, Anonymous, if the child of Mexican immigrants who is born on U.S. soil grows up to run for the presidency, I'll have no problem with that. I'll evaluate said candidate and any other candidates on their records and their positions. I really do believe that a person's actions and character that matter, not the person's skin color.
ReplyDeleteAnon, like it or not, he is a natural born US citizen.
ReplyDeleteThe UK has changed it's immigration laws to require that at least one person is a citizen.
In the US, it requires an amendment to the US Constitution since the 14th Amendment Section 1 states that:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
As I said, you have to go through the process of amending the Constitution.
Or get 5 of the Supreme Court Justices to say that wasn't what the 14th Amendment said.
As I said, that seems to work for you lot.
Greg, let's try this again. I don't think you understood what I said.
ReplyDeleteA woman, a US citizen, in this country, marries and has a child with a Mexican national. The child is born here. You are saying because he was born in the US he is a natural born citizen. While still a child, the father takes the child back to Mexico and that is where he grows up and becomes an adult. His allegiance is to Mexico. He returns to the US to run for president. Do you still consider him a natural born citizen?
Again this is Vattel on the subject
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm
Pooch, what part of I agree he is a citizen don't you understand.
ReplyDeleteHe just isn't a natural born citizen. And the 14th amendment does not make anyone a natural born citizen.
Now this will involve some common sense so I don't really expect you to understand this, but...
There is no separate explanation in the Constitution between natural born citizen and citizen because everyone at the time understood the difference between the two.
Was it the Bard who said, "First we kill all the lawyers". That was a great idea. Take a simple, clear and plain statement and turn it into a frickin brain twister. Sheesh!!!!
Anonymous, what part of the material did I hand you that was beyond your understanding of the English language?
ReplyDeleteDo you believe that John McCain is a natural born US Citizen?
There are times when I think that a trained chimp could do my job.
Then, I meet people like anonymous that make it clear that it does require being able to think and understand the legal rules.
Not just any idiot can be a lawyer, as anonymous makes clear.
One needs to be able to think and understand the law.
Anonymous can't think.
"Anything written prior to that is pretty much irrelevant as anything other than a historical document."
ReplyDeleteLaci - I thought you have argued in the past that much of the US law was based on British Law and therefore should be interpreted with that in mind. Now you say anything written before the Constitution has no legal bearing on US Law?
Anonymous, quick question for ya:
ReplyDeleteWho is more likely to have a proper grounding in US law:
A Swiss citizen from the mid-18th Century
or
A US Congressional staffer writing in 2009?
Come on, Anonymous, show us how ignorant you are of US law!
"Do you believe that John McCain is a natural born US Citizen?"
ReplyDeleteHas there been a legal ruling on it?
Not as far as I know. But I'm sure you can cite the case.
For your information, I'd starve before I'd work in the sleezy, slimey legal system.
Jim, Jim, Jim, you really didn't understand what I said, did you.
ReplyDeleteIn the United States, the law is derived from four sources. These four sources are constitutional law, statutory law, administrative regulations, and the common law (which includes case law).
The United States and most Commonwealth countries are heirs to the common law legal tradition of English law. Certain practices traditionally allowed under English common law were expressly outlawed by the Constitution, such as bills of attainder and general search warrants.
As common law courts, U.S. courts have inherited the principle of stare decisis. American judges, like common law judges elsewhere, not only apply the law, they also make the law, to the extent that their decisions in the cases before them become precedent for decisions in future cases.
The actual substance of English law was formally "received" into the United States in several ways. First, all U.S. states except Louisiana have enacted "reception statutes" which generally state that the common law of England (particularly judge-made law) is the law of the state to the extent that it is not repugnant to domestic law or indigenous conditions. Some reception statutes impose a specific cutoff date for reception, such as the date of a colony's founding, while others are deliberately vague. Thus, contemporary U.S. courts often cite pre-Revolution cases when discussing the evolution of an ancient judge-made common law principle into its modern form, such as the heightened duty of care traditionally imposed upon common carriers.
Second, a small number of important British statutes in effect at the time of the Revolution have been independently reenacted by U.S. states. Two examples that many lawyers will recognize are the Statute of Frauds (still widely known in the U.S. by that name) and the Statute of 13 Elizabeth (the ancestor of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act). Such English statutes are still regularly cited in contemporary American cases interpreting their modern American descendants.
However, it is important to understand that despite the presence of reception statutes, much of contemporary American common law has diverged significantly from English common law. The reason is that although the courts of the various Commonwealth nations are often influenced by each other's rulings, American courts rarely follow post-Revolution Commonwealth rulings unless there is no American ruling on point, the facts and law at issue are nearly identical, and the reasoning is strongly persuasive.
So, one can look to British law prior to the revolution if the US law is silent.
Anonymous is trying to argue that a Swiss legal writer from 1755 is a legal authority under US law.
That goes against proper legal practise.
Does that make sense, Jim?
I should also add that many "scholars" attempt to cite English law as a basis for a non-militia right to arms or self-defence.
ReplyDeleteIn that case, it is proper to mention English common law as it was understood at the time of the revolution since that fits the that the common law of England (particularly judge-made law) is the law in regard to how self-defence was understood at the time of the revolution.
To some extent, it has remained similar.
So, Anonymous is trying to argue that a Swiss writer has some bearing upon US law.
He might have a better basis if the authority had been someone writing about English Common law (e.g., Blackstone).
Pooch says:
ReplyDeleteWho is more likely to have a proper grounding in US law:
A Swiss citizen from the mid-18th Century
or
A US Congressional staffer writing in 2009?
Come on, Anonymous, show us how ignorant you are of US law!
Regarding the Constitution, which is the basis for this discussion on natural born citizen, the founders, were heavily influenced by Vattel, not some staffer.
Among those citing Vattel in legal cases and government documents, were Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, James Wilson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, and John Marshall. John Adams, the future delegate to the Continental Congress, second President of the U.S., and father of President John Quincy Adams, recorded in his Diary on Feb. 1, 1763, that after spending the day frivolously, instead of reading and thinking, ``The Idea of M. de Vattel indeed, scowling and frowning, haunted me.'' In 1765, Adams copied into his Diary three statements by Vattel, ``of great use to Judges,'' that laws should be interpreted according to the intent of the author, and every interpretation which leads to absurdity should be rejected. In a letter to the Foreign Minister of Denmark, in 1779, Benjamin Franklin quoted Vattel, and ``his excellent Treatise entitled {Le Droit des Gens.}'' James Madison, as a member of the Continental Congress in 1780, drafted the instructions sent to John Jay, for negotiating a treaty with Spain, which quotes at length from {The Law of Nations.} Jay complained that this letter, which was probably read by the Spanish government, was not in code, and ``Vattel's {Law of Nations,} which I found quoted in a letter from Congress, is prohibited here.'' Later, John Marshall, during his thirty-four years as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, quoted Vattel by far the most among all authors on the law of nations.
Anonymous, do you have your head up you arse?
ReplyDeleteVattel cannot possibly be considered Legal authority by any standard I have mentioned.
I could frankly give a shit if Paul Revere's horse read Vattel--He's not legal authority.
And as far as I know, you have no basis for making that claim other than you are an arrogant fuck who has no idea of US legal practise.
I keep being diverted from saying:
ReplyDeleteYes, Anonymous, if the child of Mexican immigrants who is born on U.S. soil grows up to run for the presidency, I'll have no problem with that. I'll evaluate said candidate and any other candidates on their records and their positions. I really do believe that a person's actions and character that matter, not the person's skin color.
Wow, that's the first thing he's said that made sense. Too bad he can't articulate a basis for that!
I’m not going to get into the validity of Vattel's argument, other than to say I, and others in the reality based world, don’t buy it.
ReplyDeleteThere have been decades of Supreme Court opinions which shred the notion that there are different “tiers” of native citizenship, and de Vattel’s influence on the Framers is arguable because the phrase “natural-born citizen” does not appear in the original version.
It’s worth noting that apparently the phrase “natural born citizen” comes from a translation of De Vattel that took place after the drafting of the Constitution — so his work cannot have influenced an interpretation of the exact meaning of that phrase. In the earlier translations, the word had been translated as indegenes – significant because we now would use the word indigenous to refer to Native Americans.
Given that De Vattel was European, he very well may have had a strongly ethnocentric view of “citizenship” — a view that would have been out of place in the US, given our history. De Vattel’s “natural law” would have made Native Americans the birthright citizens — something I don’t think the founding fathers had in mind.
Historical aside: de Vattel would have considered President Chester A. Arthur a natural born US Citizen according to his view of natural law because the President’s father, albeit a British Citizen when Chester was born, was clearly a permanent resident of the United States (who was naturalized later).
So, Anonymous, keep your birther bullshit to yourself.
You are ignorant of US law.
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteYou already explained the basis for my statement. U.S. law and the Constitution define who a citizen is, and the child in question is a citizen.
We can agree on occasion.
Yes, we can indeed.
ReplyDeleteAlthough, I'll call you a lazy bugger.
BTW, I was going to point out that Anonymous failed to answer whether John McCain was a natural born US Citizen.
If he can't, we can safely assume that he is both a birther and a racist.
"Vattel cannot possibly be considered Legal authority by any standard I have mentioned."
ReplyDeleteThat's why Justice Marshall cited him time after time, right.
btw, you forgot to cite the case which says John McCain is a natural born citizen. Maybe because he isn't, could that be. Sounds like a constitutional issue, not a birther issue, but that is just a way for you to spread your calumny because you are a sciolist.
Is a lazy bugger otherwise known as a celebate?
ReplyDelete