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.
Of course they are. Neither can inherit from an alien. Both can inherit from a denizen. Their rights are identical.
Two sons born to the same father in the same place. One can inherit; the other cannot. Their rights are NOT identical.
Furthermore... "After 1574 children of aliens or even denizensborn in England were no longer permitted to work as apprentices with English masters." http://www.helsinki.fi/iehc2006/papers2/Esser.pdf
Same time and place of birth; DIFFERENT rights.
What caused the rights of individuals born in the same place at the same time to be different? Only ONE thing: the status of one's father at the time of one's birth.
Two sons born to the same father in the same place.
At different times and under different circumstances. Their rights under the law are exactly the same. Their circumstances are not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
One can inherit; the other cannot. Their rights are NOT identical.
Both have the identical rights to inherit. Only one of them had the good fortune to be born to a person who could inherit to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Furthermore... "After 1574 children of aliens or even denizensborn in England were no longer permitted to work as apprentices with English masters." http://www.helsinki.fi/iehc2006/papers2/Esser.pdf
Same time and place of birth; DIFFERENT rights.
Those are statutes. They have nothing to do with the common law and are therefore irrelevant to the issues at hand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
What caused the rights of individuals born in the same place at the same time to be different?
In the case of the apprenticeship, British statute. In the case of the inheritance, the children's rights are identical. Their circumstances are not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Only ONE thing: the status of one's father at the time of one's birth.
Exactly. The father's status was different. That is the difference in their circumstances. The children's rights however are identical.
I know it's futile to give you thought experiments since you always run away from them, but let's try one anyways.
Two persons are born on the same day, in the same hospital, both to fathers who are US citizens.
Father number one dies, and son number one inherits his large fortune.
Father number dies impoverished, and son number two inherits nothing.
Are their rights the same or different?
The outcome is DIFFERENT because the fathers' circumstances were DIFFERENT.
Do you get it now? Children born in the U.S. to citizen parents are U.S. citizens at birth. Children born in the U.S. to an alien father are NOT U.S. citizens at birth. Source: the 14th Amendment AS written AND intended.
Different parental circumstances. Different outcomes. Just like what was in practice in England for the 13th-19th centuries.
Those are statutes. They have nothing to do with the common law
MORE progress! Excellent! You now ADMIT that the so-called "common law" wasn't even in effect at the time, in England.
Quote:
In the case of the apprenticeship, British statute. In the case of the inheritance, the children's rights are identical. Their circumstances are not.
Of course, because "common law" WASN'T in effect; statutes were.
Quote:
Exactly. The father's status was different. That is the difference in their circumstances. The children's rights however are identical.
EXACTLY the point, HD. Two sons, born in Hawaii on the same day. One has U.S. citizen parents, the other has an alien father. The former is a citizen according to the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause's author and the Judiciary Committee Chairman, but the latter ISN'T a U.S. citizen. Both children's rights are identical. The father's status was different. That is the difference in their circumstances.
MORE progress! Excellent! You now ADMIT that the so-called "common law" wasn't even in effect at the time, in England.
I "ADMIT" that English statues have no authority in the US, since we only adopted English common law, not statutory law. And as we all know, "natural-born subject/citizen" is a term of art from the common law, not statutory law. You can chase the irrelevant red herring without me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
EXACTLY the point, HD.
Not even close to the point, IC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Two sons, born in Hawaii on the same day. One has U.S. citizen parents, the other has an alien father.
The rights of those two children are identical. They are both natural-born US citizens (as long as the alien father was not a foreign diplomat or alien soldier on hostile occupation). Both are eligible for the presidency, regardless of whether or not only one of them actually gets there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
The former is a citizen according to the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause's author and the Judiciary Committee Chairman, but the latter ISN'T a U.S. citizen. Both children's rights are identical.
You directly contradict yourself in those two sentences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
The father's status was different. That is the difference in their circumstances.
But their rights are identical. Both are eligible for the Presidency.
That IS in fact the question of Obama's eligibility.
Two sons, born in Hawaii on the same day. One has U.S. citizen parents, the other has an alien father. The former is a citizen according to the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause's author and the Judiciary Committee Chairman, but the latter ISN'T a U.S. citizen. Both children's rights are identical. The father's status was different. That is the difference in their circumstances.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
The father's status was different. That is the difference in their circumstances. The children's rights however are identical.
Exactly, HD. Obama, given full and equal rights as one born in the U.S. to U.S. citizen parents, is NOT a U.S. citizen and is NOT eligible for POTUS because in your own words...
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
The father's status was different. That is the difference in their circumstances.
Obama is NOT Constitutionally eligible for POTUS. Source: the 14th Amendment AS written AND intended.
You yourself, HD, fully admit that given the same rights, different parental circumstances yield different results. In 13th-19th century England. In the U.S.
That IS in fact the question of Obama's eligibility.
See? I told you you would run away from the question. You always do.
No one can say I didn't try.
So, what have we seen across these last dozen or so posts?
You have done a complete 180, suddenly agreeing with me now that the children's "rights are the same" when for post after post after post you were demanding I explain why their rights were different. This ability to completely abandon a failed argument, adopt its opposite and pretend it still supports the same position is a demonstration of nothing less than a complete lack of standards, honesty, and integrity. It is proof that the only thing you care about is finding a way, any way to defend what is pure prejudice.
Last edited by HistorianDude; 04-22-2013 at 05:27 PM..
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.
wasn't even in effect at the time, in England.