Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Seems to me that insults of that nature are hurled at Democrats every single day. During the election, I vividly recall being told here at C-D that being a Democrat was synonymous with being mentally ill. I'm sure given a few minutes I could track down the post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
I concur! Gosh, a quick perusal through the P&OC forum would see all sorts of epithets hurled at Democrats: "Libitards", immoral, amoral, sucking off the government teat, etc. I bet you could find at least a dozen on the first page of P&OC alone.
The use and definition of natural born citizen as used in the Constitution can easily be traced to Vattel's Law of Nations.
Actually... no. There is no possibility whatsoever of tracing the phrase "natural born citizen" to Vattel at all.The “de Vattel definition†of “natural-born citizen “did not exist at the time the Constitution was framed.
2. The first English translation was published in 1759, in London. It translates “Les Naturels ou indigènes…†to read “The natives or indigenes…†The phrase “natural-born citizens†is nowhere to be found. And the currently intuitive “naturels†is translated to “natives,†while “indigenes†is left completely untranslated.
3. There were 3 different English editions of the work published prior to 1787 and therefore available to the Framers of the Constitution. They were London:1759, London:1760, and New York:1787. All of them translated “Les Naturels ou indigènes…†to read “The natives or indigenes…â€
4. Additional English editions were printed in Dublin:1792, London:1793, and New York:1796. All of them translated “Les Naturels ou indigènes…†to read “The natives or indigenes…â€
5. The first appearance of the phrase “natural-born citizens†appears in the London:1797 edition, and it is a translation of the French word “indigènes,†not the French “naturels.†This was ten years after the Constitution was written, and 30 years after de Vattel’s death.
6. At the time of the framing of the Constitution, the “de Vattel†definition did not exist.
7. There was a single definition of “natural-born citizen/subject†that existed in 1787 and was available to the Framers, and it was that of English Common Law. That definition was exclusively tied to place of birth, the citizenship status of parents was irrelevant.
Your argument here, to be true, would require the Framers to be capable of time travel. While they were undoubtedly gifted men, being able to rend the time-space continuum was probably among the things they were good at.
Care to point out any other definition and use of the concept of 'natural born citizen' within that same timeframe?
I can do better than that. I can point out to the only definition that existed in the English language at all. It can be found in Blackstone's Commentaries.
No, it certainly doesn't make it okay, and I promise you that I have never used derogatory terms to describe people who hold different opinions than I do about political issues. I'll admit to getting a bit ramped up over issues, but I do not engage in ad hominem attacks. I hold myself to a very high standard in that regard, and I wish others would do the same.
No, it certainly doesn't make it okay, and I promise you that I have never used derogatory terms to describe people who hold different opinions than I do about political issues. I'll admit to getting a bit ramped up over issues, but I do not engage in ad hominem attacks. I hold myself to a very high standard in that regard, and I wish others would do the same.
Agreed all around. I do not call peopole or groups names, either. I was a) explaining where the term "dumbasses" regarding the birthers came from, and b) agreeing that there is plenty of name calling by the right wing as well. It is extremely disingenous to have this faux outrage about something that is so upbiquitous. In fact, I asked the mods once about the name calling and was told if it's not directed at an individual, it's OK. So Ken Buck's comment is OK.
This pastor is saying he is not, he can always prove otherwise, have you ever known America to not be a Christian Nation. AMERICA welcomes ALLFAITHS and ALL RACES, but we ARE A CHRISTIAN NATION.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
