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 05-03-2010, 07:14 AM
 
26,562 posts, read 14,434,478 times
Reputation: 7421

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by DraggingCanoe View Post
Attempts to minimize the role Vattels' Laws of Nations..played guiding the Founders are ...at best..baseless.
de vattel uses the word "native" in his writing, not "natural born citizen". that phrase was added in an english edition in 1797 ( 10 years after the ratification of the constitution as has been pointed out in this thread repeatedly ).

 
Old 05-03-2010, 07:19 AM
 
26,562 posts, read 14,434,478 times
Reputation: 7421
"Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens."

this is the original passage.
 
Old 05-03-2010, 07:22 AM
 
1,503 posts, read 1,155,652 times
Reputation: 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrecking ball View Post
"Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens."

this is the original passage.
So only American Indians can be citizens. That works.
 
Old 05-03-2010, 07:31 AM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,892 posts, read 16,070,698 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by DraggingCanoe View Post
It is true for all persons that triangles have three angles equal to two right angles but not every one knows this..
It is also true that the reference you offered says nothing about citizenship whatsoever. You may as well has posted John Jay's shopping list with a footnote regarding De Vattel's hat size.

It would have been just as relevant.
 
Old 05-03-2010, 07:46 AM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,892 posts, read 16,070,698 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by DraggingCanoe View Post
A natural born citizen cannot be common law...common law ties to the original country..the Founders did not want this...a natural born subject (common law) is a perpetual allegiance to the prince..
Ignoring that what you have written here is more or less inane nonsense, your biggest problem is that the Founders themselves never said that. You really have to stop making stuff up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DraggingCanoe
America went to war over Common Law in 1812.
No. It went to war over British attempts to restrict US Trade w/ France, British military support of hostile Indians in the Northwest Territory, the impressment of American sailors, and "The Chesapeake Affair."

Quote:
Originally Posted by DraggingCanoe
England..all born in the dominions of the Crown are to be its natural born subjects.
America... all born on US soil who are not the children of foreign diplomats or occupying armies are to be its natural born citizens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DraggingCanoe
Being a natural born citizen cancels all allegiances between nations.
Allegiances between nations are governed by treaty, not by citizenship.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DraggingCanoe
The British Doctrine allows double allegiances..
So does the American.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DraggingCanoe
The Founders set up a new system..they did not want to be like England...
Actually, there was a lot about England they wanted to be very much like.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DraggingCanoe
Read the books..the Founders read. Not the Obama Kool Aide Book of the month.
More important. Read what the Founders said, not just what they read.
 
Old 05-03-2010, 07:59 AM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,892 posts, read 16,070,698 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by DraggingCanoe View Post
Attempts to minimize the role Vattels' Laws of Nations..played guiding the Founders are ...at best..baseless.
Attempts to mischaracterize the role of De Vattel's The Law of Nations (note both his actual name and the actual title of the book) in the opinion of the Founders are ... at best ... ignorant and dishonest.

While literally scores of references to De Vattel can be found in the writings of the Founders... not one of them has been found that looks upon De Vattel's theories regarding citizenship with any favor whatsoever. And in several cases, the Founders had no problem rejecting De Vattel's ideas completely.

For example, De Vattel was vehemently against the right of any but the nobility to bear arms. The 2nd Amendment is a direct rejection of De Vattel's ideas.

The simple truth is this: De Vattel never mentioned natural born citizenship once. So he cannot have had any influence whatsoever on the Article 2 definition of natural born citizen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DraggingCanoe
The same is done with Sarah Palin.
What role are you asserting that Sarah Palin played guiding the Founding Fathers? Exactly?

I will admit, that since you clearly seem to believe that the Founders were capable of time travel, the idea that Palin influenced them is no less bizarre than your theory that De Vattel was the source of the phrase "natural born citizen." So, entertain us all and tell us which phrases in the Constitution we should be attributing to Sarah in your opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DraggingCanoe
We do not know for a fact Obama is an American..and..if he was born in Hawaii...that makes him half an American.
And that also makes him 100% natural born American citizen.
 
Old 05-03-2010, 08:42 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,297 posts, read 120,694,120 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by DraggingCanoe View Post

It is true for all persons that triangles have three angles equal to two right angles but not every one knows this..
It is also true that e=mc2, but not everyone knows this. Your repitition about the triangle is getting old.

Last edited by Katarina Witt; 05-03-2010 at 08:53 AM..
 
Old 05-03-2010, 08:52 AM
 
26,562 posts, read 14,434,478 times
Reputation: 7421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
It is also true that e=mc2, but not everyone knows this....
but do we 100% know this ?
 
Old 05-03-2010, 09:05 AM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,861,612 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrecking ball View Post
but do we 100% know this ?
Since one is geometry theory and the other is physics theory, they are both scientific theories, equally provable, demonstratable, and accepted, but also equally subject to change as more information becomes available.
 
Old 05-03-2010, 09:16 AM
 
26,562 posts, read 14,434,478 times
Reputation: 7421
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
Since one is geometry theory and the other is physics theory, they are both scientific theories, equally provable, demonstratable, and accepted, but also equally subject to change as more information becomes available.
i was just joking DC but...... thanks for the scientific breakdown. it reinforces the point that nothing can ever be 100% provable.
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.

© 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