Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-29-2011, 03:27 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,893 posts, read 16,051,059 times
Reputation: 3954

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by claudhopper View Post
Definition of ALIEN
1
a: belonging or relating to another person, place, or thing : strange b: relating, belonging, or owing allegiance to another country or government : foreign

Alien - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Again... US Statute trumps Merriam-Webster.

 
Old 10-29-2011, 03:28 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,893 posts, read 16,051,059 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
If you have any other direct primary source for the inclusion of the NBC clause for Presidential eligibility in the Constitution besides Jay's letter to Washington, post it.
Jay's letter is not a primary source.
 
Old 10-29-2011, 03:31 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,893 posts, read 16,051,059 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Given John Jay's letter, we DO know the intent of the NBC clause was to exclude foreigners.
And of course we know that having foreign citizenship does not necessarily make you a foreigner.
 
Old 10-29-2011, 03:33 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,893 posts, read 16,051,059 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
John Jay's letter is the original source. The UC Berkeley journal article I posted provides a historically accurate definition of foreigner.
It is of no help to you. Barack Obama would still not be a foreigner under that definition.
 
Old 10-29-2011, 03:40 PM
 
7,541 posts, read 6,260,769 times
Reputation: 1837
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Blackstone ISN'T sourced. St. George Tucker opined on it in his 1803 treatise. 1803... AFTER the fact.
He was. He was a heavily influencer on our founding fathers. HE was the expert on Common Law, and much of our laws derived from English Common Law.

Nearly everything you find in our Constitution is a near rip off of what was known in English Common Law. \

Quote:
In fact, EVERYTHING you quoted is nothing more than commentary written significantly AFTER the fact.
And those tires on your backpedal are screeching. YOU used that document to support your position, and when shown that IT doesn't, here you are saying "meh, its just an opinion after the fact"

you are so dishonest that you can no longer tell your own lies from the real truth.

Quote:
NONE of it is a primary source document either to or from a Constitutional Convention delegate.
None of what you have provided is primary source of anything. A letter to George Washington isn't a primary source, and the documents from the Constitutional Convention shows that John Jay was never discussed.

Quote:
It is the ONLY primary source tying the NBC clause requirement to the Constitutional Convention.
John Jay's letter isn't a primary source. Your were given the primary source, you just ignore it

Primary source:
English Common Law

As referenced many times in the documents recorded during the Constitutional convention and the many court cases that followed.

Quote:
If you have some other primary source document, post it.
We've mentioned it several times, your bias and your constant dishonesty shows that you have ignored it:

Primary source:
English Common Law

Quote:
So far, you have nothing.
you're the one with nothing

Quote:
Trumping that, Minor v. Happersett DIRECTLY addresses both common law AND nomenclature of the time in regards to NBC:You STILL haven't made your case. Not surprising... the facts simply do not support your opinion.

And this is where your dishonesty is fully shown. Why did you ignore this part of the SAME paragraph?

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.




You've been caught several times, lying about the findings of Minor V Happersett.
 
Old 10-29-2011, 03:53 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,893 posts, read 16,051,059 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus View Post
He was. He was a heavily influencer on our founding fathers. HE was the expert on Common Law, and much of our laws derived from English Common Law.

Nearly everything you find in our Constitution is a near rip off of what was known in English Common Law.
In the list of top 40 influences of the Founders and Framers Blackstone comes in at #3. Vattel in contrast is a very distant #29.
 
Old 10-29-2011, 03:57 PM
 
Location: Northern CA
12,770 posts, read 11,543,579 times
Reputation: 4262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus View Post
He was. He was a heavily influencer on our founding fathers. HE was the expert on Common Law, and much of our laws derived from English Common Law.

Nearly everything you find in our Constitution is a near rip off of what was known in English Common Law. \


And those tires on your backpedal are screeching. YOU used that document to support your position, and when shown that IT doesn't, here you are saying "meh, its just an opinion after the fact"

you are so dishonest that you can no longer tell your own lies from the real truth.



None of what you have provided is primary source of anything. A letter to George Washington isn't a primary source, and the documents from the Constitutional Convention shows that John Jay was never discussed.


John Jay's letter isn't a primary source. Your were given the primary source, you just ignore it

Primary source:
English Common Law

As referenced many times in the documents recorded during the Constitutional convention and the many court cases that followed.



We've mentioned it several times, your bias and your constant dishonesty shows that you have ignored it:

Primary source:
English Common Law



you're the one with nothing




And this is where your dishonesty is fully shown. Why did you ignore this part of the SAME paragraph?

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.




You've been caught several times, lying about the findings of Minor V Happersett.
Stop accusing him of lieing, he is presenting a formidable case that you simply disagree with. It's a matter of interpretation. I'm taking 10 points away from you for that. Stay above the belt.
 
Old 10-29-2011, 04:12 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,488,465 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by claudhopper View Post
Stop accusing him of lieing, he is presenting a formidable case that you simply disagree with. It's a matter of interpretation. I'm taking 10 points away from you for that. Stay above the belt.
Who quit and made you mod?
 
Old 10-29-2011, 04:27 PM
 
Location: Northern CA
12,770 posts, read 11,543,579 times
Reputation: 4262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Who quit and made you mod?
You are such a stick in the mud, no sense of humor.
This is a great debate, stupid accusations contribute nothing. Intellectuals would say, no you are wrong and here's why! Let's keep this civil. and you can keep your nose out of it, because you never offer anything but nitpicking, because you suffer from low self esteem. Let's not turn this into another thread about you, and your need for attention. Get a pet.
This is about Arus and Informed Consent. I am enjoying this, don't ruin it.

Count your lucky stars I'm not a mod.

Last edited by claudhopper; 10-29-2011 at 04:37 PM..
 
Old 10-29-2011, 04:31 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,804 posts, read 44,610,756 times
Reputation: 13626
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
I guess that sentence could be parsed like that.
It's not parsed. Minor v. Happersett deliberately defined NBC, and then went on to specifically refer to those born in the U.S. without regard to the citizenship status of their parents as potentially doubtful citizens. ..."citizens." ...NOT "natural born citizens."
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.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:23 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top