Democrat's Vattel denial

[Searcher44]

Those of us who are knowledgeable of American history and the origins of the US Constitution know that Vattel had a HUGE influence on the US Constitution.

When it is pointed out to Democrats that the term "natural born citizen" as used in the US Constiution comes from Vattel's Law of Nations...

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."

Source

...They scoff at the notion.

However, when pressed, the Democrats cannot come up with any other enlightenment era treatise on law that uses the term "natural born citizen".

They reject that definition simply because it proves that Obama is not eligible to be president.

Yet the Democrat Court cited Law of Nations to justify the slavery of American citizens in 1918. And consequently the Democrats have been using that decision to justify adopting slavery whenever they feel like it. E.g. WWII, the Korean war, and even as recently as Johnson's Vietnam war.

"A just government and its duty to the citizen includes the reciprocal obligation of the citizen to render military service in case of need, and the right to compel it."

Source

So, for the party of slavery it's OK to cite Law of Nations to justify slavery, but not OK to cite Law of Nations to determine who is eligible to be president.

Those of us who are knowledgeable of American history and the origins of the US Constitution know that Vattel had a HUGE influence on the US Constitution.

When it is pointed out to Democrats that the term "natural born citizen" as used in the US Constiution comes from Vattel's Law of Nations...

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."

Source

...They scoff at the notion.

However, when pressed, the Democrats cannot come up with any other enlightenment era treatise on law that uses the term "natural born citizen".

They reject that definition simply because it proves that Obama is not eligible to be president.

Yet the Democrat Court cited Law of Nations to justify the slavery of American citizens in 1918. And consequently the Democrats have been using that decision to justify adopting slavery whenever they feel like it. E.g. WWII, the Korean war, and even as recently as Johnson's Vietnam war.

"A just government and its duty to the citizen includes the reciprocal obligation of the citizen to render military service in case of need, and the right to compel it."

Source

So, for the party of slavery it's OK to cite Law of Nations to justify slavery, but not OK to cite Law of Nations to determine who is eligible to be president.

Where did Vattel sign the Constitution? I looked, and can't find his signature.

Why are you in such denial of the truth?

What truth? The truth that you are trying to use material that doesn't matter to prove something that isn't true?

If it doesn't matter then why did the Democrats use it to justify the adoption of slavery? It's right there in the second link. You probably haven't read it because you choose to remain ignorant.

If it doesn't matter why was it the most requested book at the library in Philadelphia during the constitutional conventions? It certainly seemed to matter to them.

Why did Ben Franklin order another copy from overseas if it didn't matter to him?

"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, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the college of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author."

Source

It certainly seems like it mattered to the framers of the US constitution. It mattered a hell of a lot to them.



Now if the term of art "natural born citizen" did not come from Law of nations, where did it come from?

I challenge you name another treatise on law from the enlightenment era that uses that term.

Face it, Obama usurped the presidency. People who choose to remain ignorant of the US Constitution and it's origins voted him into office.

P.S.

When it is pointed out to Democrats that the term "natural born citizen" as used in the US Constiution comes from Vattel's Law of Nations...

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."

Source

...They scoff at the notion.

I'm Scoffing.

 

[BULLDOG]

I don't know why they did dumb shit a century or more ago.

This is exactly why history matters more than many think. You essentially have admitted that I am correct regarding the topic, and you were wrong. The ability to admit that you were wrong is a sign of intelligence, even though it took a shitload of empirical evidence to force you there.

So, you basically have conceded the fact that Obama usurped the presidency. Correct?

However the impression that I perceive from you is that you do not think that's a problem. "Obama stole the presidency, so what?" seems to be your attitude. What harm could that cause?

In the long run, it matters a lot. Every bill that Obama signed into law that was not passed by congress with a super majority is null and void. How long would it take the US government to fix that major fuck up?

A couple weeks, a couple months, a few years several decades?...

I don't think so.

Wow. You've gone a little nuts there. I have always acknowledged that the Democratic party did some really bad things over the centuries, but that changed long ago. Democrats once had close ties to the KKK. Big deal. That is not what happens today. If you contend that present day Democrats are responsible for and guilty of what was done by the Democratic party 100 years ago, then you're nuts.
As far as your silly remark about Obama stealing the presidency, that is beyond nuts.If you don't like the way our government operates then get your traitorous ass out. We don't need you.

The fact of the matter is that Democrats imposed slavery as recently as the Vietnam war. Contrary to your lies, that was not "100 years ago". What the fuck do you think those 1968 riots at the Party Of Slavery convention in Chicago were all about?

They were protesting slavery, jackass.

Did Hannity tell you that?

What does "Hannity" have to do with the topic?

He's one of the main sources for right wing misinformation for now, It was a natural assumption.

 

[Muhammed]

Those of us who are knowledgeable of American history and the origins of the US Constitution know that Vattel had a HUGE influence on the US Constitution.

When it is pointed out to Democrats that the term "natural born citizen" as used in the US Constiution comes from Vattel's Law of Nations...

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."

Source

...They scoff at the notion.

However, when pressed, the Democrats cannot come up with any other enlightenment era treatise on law that uses the term "natural born citizen".

They reject that definition simply because it proves that Obama is not eligible to be president.

Yet the Democrat Court cited Law of Nations to justify the slavery of American citizens in 1918. And consequently the Democrats have been using that decision to justify adopting slavery whenever they feel like it. E.g. WWII, the Korean war, and even as recently as Johnson's Vietnam war.

"A just government and its duty to the citizen includes the reciprocal obligation of the citizen to render military service in case of need, and the right to compel it."

Source

So, for the party of slavery it's OK to cite Law of Nations to justify slavery, but not OK to cite Law of Nations to determine who is eligible to be president.

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

There is zero proof the Framers had that particular definition in mind when they inserted the "Natural Born Citizen" clause. Vattel himself didn't have your definition set in stone, for example, from: Presidential Eligibility

"Sometimes miscited is Emmerich de Vattel, in his work Les Droit des Gens (Law of Nations), taking out of context the words from Book I:
§ 212. ... The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
But this is not a precise translation from the French, which has no exact equivalent to "natural born", and the French word word "parens" can mean close family, not necessarily biological parents. He was writing of a modified form of the rule of jus sanguinis that was municipal law (not the law of nations), and only for some countries on the European Continent. A little further down, he explains:

§ 214. ... there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner."

Vattel wasn't cited much by the Founders. There is no sign of him in the Federalist Papers. Blackstone and English Common Law were much more popular as references.

I'll give you a few quotes;

"In an 1829 treatise, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America, William Rawle (1759-1836), formerly the U.S. Attorney for Pennsylvania (1791-1799), wrote that

The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. ... [He] who was subsequently born the citizen of a State, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. .... Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that ... no person is eligible to the office of President unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us".

AND; Regarding a case involving confiscation of a schooner Attorney General Edweard Bates commented that "I conclude that the free man of color, mentioned in your letter, if born in the United States, is a citizen of the United States. [italics in original]"

"In the course of that opinion, Bates commented at some length on the nature of citizenship, and wrote,
... our constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic".

AND: From the Harvard Law Review

But as Congress has recognized since the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the phrase “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth. Thus, an individual born to a U.S. citizen parent — whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone — is a U.S. citizen from birth and is fully eligible to serve as President if the people so choose.

So it looks like American Jurisprudence is concerned with jus soli "right of soil" andjussanguinis"right of blood"There is nothing to suggest the "Natural Born" clause should be interpreted any different. You'll only find disagreement in the Far Right blogosphere in their feral attempts at deligitimizing Obama.

Actually Blackstone used the term "natural born subject". That was rejected by the framers of the US Constitution. It was so important to them that the word "subject" was actually erased from the original draft. Modern science has proven that.

You just do not seem to comprehend the difference between a natural born citizen and a natural born subject.

 

[Muhammed]

This is exactly why history matters more than many think. You essentially have admitted that I am correct regarding the topic, and you were wrong. The ability to admit that you were wrong is a sign of intelligence, even though it took a shitload of empirical evidence to force you there.

So, you basically have conceded the fact that Obama usurped the presidency. Correct?

However the impression that I perceive from you is that you do not think that's a problem. "Obama stole the presidency, so what?" seems to be your attitude. What harm could that cause?

In the long run, it matters a lot. Every bill that Obama signed into law that was not passed by congress with a super majority is null and void. How long would it take the US government to fix that major fuck up?

A couple weeks, a couple months, a few years several decades?...

I don't think so.

Wow. You've gone a little nuts there. I have always acknowledged that the Democratic party did some really bad things over the centuries, but that changed long ago. Democrats once had close ties to the KKK. Big deal. That is not what happens today. If you contend that present day Democrats are responsible for and guilty of what was done by the Democratic party 100 years ago, then you're nuts.
As far as your silly remark about Obama stealing the presidency, that is beyond nuts.If you don't like the way our government operates then get your traitorous ass out. We don't need you.

The fact of the matter is that Democrats imposed slavery as recently as the Vietnam war. Contrary to your lies, that was not "100 years ago". What the fuck do you think those 1968 riots at the Party Of Slavery convention in Chicago were all about?

They were protesting slavery, jackass.

Did Hannity tell you that?

What does "Hannity" have to do with the topic?

He's one of the main sources for right wing misinformation for now, It was a natural assumption.

If you were not so ignorant of American history you would know why there was a protest/riot at the Democrats' convention in 1968.

The Democrats had imposed slavery again and the people were pissed off. That isn't misinformation, that is truth.

Why are you defending the party of slavery?

 

[BULLDOG]

Wow. You've gone a little nuts there. I have always acknowledged that the Democratic party did some really bad things over the centuries, but that changed long ago. Democrats once had close ties to the KKK. Big deal. That is not what happens today. If you contend that present day Democrats are responsible for and guilty of what was done by the Democratic party 100 years ago, then you're nuts.
As far as your silly remark about Obama stealing the presidency, that is beyond nuts.If you don't like the way our government operates then get your traitorous ass out. We don't need you.

The fact of the matter is that Democrats imposed slavery as recently as the Vietnam war. Contrary to your lies, that was not "100 years ago". What the fuck do you think those 1968 riots at the Party Of Slavery convention in Chicago were all about?

They were protesting slavery, jackass.

Did Hannity tell you that?

What does "Hannity" have to do with the topic?

He's one of the main sources for right wing misinformation for now, It was a natural assumption.

If you were not so ignorant of American history you would know why there was a protest/riot at the Democrats' convention in 1968.

The Democrats had imposed slavery again and the people were pissed off. That isn't misinformation, that is truth.

Why are you defending the party of slavery?

Yep. Totally nuts.

 

[Muhammed]

The fact of the matter is that Democrats imposed slavery as recently as the Vietnam war. Contrary to your lies, that was not "100 years ago". What the fuck do you think those 1968 riots at the Party Of Slavery convention in Chicago were all about?

They were protesting slavery, jackass.

Did Hannity tell you that?

What does "Hannity" have to do with the topic?

He's one of the main sources for right wing misinformation for now, It was a natural assumption.

If you were not so ignorant of American history you would know why there was a protest/riot at the Democrats' convention in 1968.

The Democrats had imposed slavery again and the people were pissed off. That isn't misinformation, that is truth.

Why are you defending the party of slavery?

Yep. Totally nuts.

I know that you are nuts, but that doesn't mean that you must support the party of slavery.