We’re doomed. We’re all doomed (via Junk Science)
(SMH) A leading Australian disease expert says prompt action on climate change is paramount to our survival on earth.
See? Told you we were doomed.
Epidemiologist Tony McMichael has conducted a historical study that suggests natural climate change over thousands of years has destabilised civilisations via food shortages, disease and unrest.
Beyond doomed. And all because you, my dear readers, refuse to modify your lives and live like……hey, wait, did he just say “natural climate change?”
“We haven’t really grasped the fact that a change in climate presents a quite fundamental threat to the foundations of population health,” Professor McMichael, from the Australian National University, said.
Like has happened many, many times before? Like the Black Plague at the beginning of the last mini-ice age? The inability to grow grains? Starvation? Pestilence? Before SUVs and the ability to take unnecessary fossil fueled flights halfway around the world to exotic vacation spots to tell people to stop taking fossil fueled flights?
“These things have happened before in response to fairly modest changes to climate.
The implication is that this warm period is not modest, or, at least, won’t be 88 years from now when it is 2100, the favorite date the Warmists use when they look in their crystal balls, er, computers.
“Let’s be aware that we really must take early action if we are going to maintain this planet as a liveable habitat for humans.”
And, yeah, McMichael goes on to suggest that this warm period is abnormal and caused by Mankind, so, we need to Do Something, despite
In a paper published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Professor McMichael argued the world faced extreme climate change “without precedent” over the past 10,000 years.
Basically, that was the time when the climate shifted into an inter-glacial one, with wide swings between warmer and cooler. But no SUVs, iPhones, and ice makers. How could the climate change without them. Natural variables, you say? Volcanoes and solar radiance were the primary causes? Well, damn. Perhaps they are the primary reasons now, like over the past 4.5 billion years. And perhaps most of the perceived warming today is caused by localized conditions.
I saw your comment on Ace o Spades regarding Rubio being a Natural born citizen. I am inclined to think he is, but not for the reason you stated.
Are you amenable to a discussion of this issue or is your mind made up?
tell me your thoughts. I’ll listen.
About to shut down the PC for the night, but, I’ll respond in the am.
ooooooooooooh…. can I play too?
;)
It is a common belief that natural born citizen status is based on birth within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States. The reason this notion is so widespread is a result of the language in the 14th amendment which states that”
The interpretation that anyone born on the soil is a natural born citizen was also reinforced by the Supreme Court ruling of Wong Kim Ark in 1898. They concluded that the son of non-citizen Chinese was an American citizen because he was born within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States.
It is the 14th Amendment AND the Wong Kim Ark decision taken together that has led most people to believe the issue is cut and dried.
I will however, point out that “natural born citizen” existed prior to the 14th amendment. The term was not created by the 14th amendment. Indeed, the words “natural born” are conspicuously absent from the 14th amendment. The reason for this is that it was not the intention, nor was it even thought possible that the Congress, and the ratifying states could make former slaves “natural born” citizens when they were not already such.
It could make them “citizens” but it could not make them “natural born.” (i.e. having the attribute of citizenship as a characteristic of their nature.)
Just to give you an idea of what I am talking about, I refer you to the Supreme Court decision The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
In this case, the question of what is a natural born citizen comes up. Ruling for the Court, Chief Justice John Marshall says:
I would say that Chief Justice John Marshall accurately describes the meaning of the term “natural born citizen” as it was understood in 1814, which was only 27 years after the constitution was written. Indeed, John Marshall was in the thick of it, helping to create it 27 years earlier, so he ought to know what was intended.
My point is, Whatever the correct meaning of “natural born citizen” is, the 14th amendment did not change or repeal it, so an interpretation of Presidential eligibility which is based on the 14th amendment is incorrect. It needs to be based on the meaning of the term in 1787 when it was written into our governing document. There is a plethora of evidence which demonstrates that the intended meaning was that someone should be born to parents who are citizens of this nation.
Only in this manner could it be guaranteed that the child will have no ties of allegiance to another nation.
I have a LOT of evidence in the form of founders letters, etc. to back up this interpretation if you want to see them.
Sorry for the verbosity. Back to you.
“…conducted a historical study that suggests natural climate change over thousands of years has destabilised civilisations via food shortages, disease and unrest.”
And my historical study suggests that he’s reading way too much into minimal data, and hyping the questionable results in order to a) get more funding and b) to get the professional approval of his peers.
I’m not going to disagree with you on that at all, DiogenesLamp, we are getting to the same conclusion down different roads. The Constitution left it up to Congress to determine what a “natural born citizen” is, and based on the relevant laws, being born in the US and certain US properties (interestingly, a military base overseas doesn’t count, and doesn’t necessarily even make the person a US citizen, even if born to two US citizens) makes the person natural born, not just a citizen. Strangely, this could make the child of an illegal immigrant be eligible to be POTUS. Most of the laws harken back to the early 20th century and before, when there wasn’t that much a concern regarding illegals.
Well, except from Democrats, who were really upset about Chinese immigrants, and actually included bigotry in the party platforms at the time.
I would point out an area where we diverge. The founders based the constitution on the principles of “natural law” and by those principles, congress can neither give nor take away a “natural” characteristic. The Constitution empowered Congress the ability to “naturalize” but not to create something which IS natural.
“Naturalization” is the process of making something to be like “natural.” It is exactly the same Legal/philosophical principle as Adoption. You may make an adopted child a member of the Family, but you cannot make him blood kin.
(now for a little side issue)
There is a great deal of evidence that the Founders based our entire system of government on the principles of natural law, and explicitly rejected the principles of English Common law. There is no provision in English law to throw off allegiance to the sovereign. The very act of declaring independence was itself a rejection of English law principles governing Subjects. It was a requirement of a natural born subject to owe perpetual allegiance to the British Crown.
It is the English Common law which the Court cited in Wong Kim Ark to justify their decision that being born on the soil makes one a citizen, because English Common law said that being born on the soil makes one a Subject. I would point out that the British Crown has never relied on any of this “born on the soil” nonsense to select THEIR Chief executive. Their rulers have always been a member of the Royal Family, and as such, rules by right of Blood. Nor can any British Subject be a member of the House of Lords. Again, you must be a member of an Aristocratic House, or you cannot be in the Upper House. The House of Commons is available to those “born on the soil” types, but that is all.
Anyway, it brings us back to another salient point. If we won the war of Independence, why is British Common law (which we broke forever when we rebelled) still governing us?
(back to the main subject thread.)
It is axiomatic that Congress does not have certain powers. For example, they may make no law regarding an establishment of religion, and they may not prohibit Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press. They are granted the power of “naturalization”. In Article I, Section 8, The Constitution specifically says:
Look at it this way.
“Congress shall have the power to establish a uniform rule of National Adoption.
Now is it more clear? Congress cannot make “natural” what is not already “natural”, they can only make something “like natural.” The Founders knew and clearly understood this because they included the exemption for themselves in the requirements for President. Remember, Article II says:
Ooopppsss! Wish I could edit. Oh Well, HTML is easy for machines. Not so much for humans.
That is most certainly not correct. The case before the court was whether Ark was a citizen of the United States as his parents were not and by law could not be citizens. The SCOTUS only concluded he was a citizen and did not give up that citizenship when he returned to China for a period of time. Ark was never considered to be a “natural born citizen.”
Quoting the decision:
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
The court does not make an official declaration of “natural born citizen.”
He may have or may not have. The fact of the matter is he is not “describing” anything, but simply quoting Vattel as a source of laws between nations. (Remember, the case in question deals with the seizing of goods between combatant nations where ownership of the cargo and vessel rested on the citizenship of the participants. “The Venus” case is much like “The Prizes” cases in the Civil War. It is a maritime and treaty case, not a case resting solely on American Law.) Vattel may or may not have had an influence on the Framers, but the Framers were working from a different translation of Vattel than Marshall.
Yet Minor (upon which much of Ark is decided) says something different. In Minor the SCOTUS says that there is no doubt that a person with both parents who are citizens of the country is a natural born citizen. However, what the court did not decide as it was not a part of the case is whether a person with one citizen parent is a “natural born citizen.”
This is a gross misunderstanding of the term in a legal sense. If that were the case, than a “naturalized citizen” would be the same as a “natural born citizen,” and that is simply not true. You are going where no legal foundation exists.
This is patently false. “Natural law” deals with the rights of man bestowed upon him by God / nature. English Law deals with how those rights are protected and the interaction between people with natural rights.
This is false. A British citizen could become a citizen of another country by moving to that country and disavowing allegiance to the British monarch. The American Revolution was more than the throwing off of the monarchy, but also the taking of British soil. The Framers of the Constitution and Articles of Confederation recognized that many of them (all in fact) were born on British soil (the colonies) and originally had an allegiance to the British crown. That allegiance and and soil was now dissolved.
This is false too. The English common law requires birth, domicile and allegience to be a citizen except for certain special circumstances.
Being the Royal family is still born on English soil, resides in England and owes allegiance to the sovereign, you are trying to make a distinction where no exists. As such, your premise fails.
It doesn’t. British Common law serves as a foundation (one of several) upon which American law was built. If you look back at early Supreme Court decisions, you will find the constant quoting of English Common Law as precedent as “American Law” was still in its infancy and lacked the weight of precedence. (“Precedence,” by the way, is a principle found in English Common Law.”)
You have misread Congress’ power and authority. Congress is given the express power to define “citizen” and to come up with a plan to allow aliens to become citizens.
Which is perfectly within their power and authority.
No.
To believe as you do implies that God or nature establishes a state to which a person is a citizen. That is not so. It is man who makes states, not God and not nature. The right of citizenship is not a “natural right” and never has been.
Great points. An interesting by-product of the discussion is that, going back to the original intent of the Framers, they seemed to be considering that natural born after the adoption of the Constitution would mean a child born to a father who was a citizen of the USA, and could not claim allegiance to another country. To open an ugly can of worms, that would mean Barack Obama would not be a natural born citizen. Though I’d never mention this to Birthers. Even though Obama seems to act more a citizen of the world, rather than an someone who owes allegiance to the US.
Of course, the law has changed quite a bit in defining the term and what it means to be natural born, as the Congress has the power to pass the laws to define the term. Based on the writings at the time the Constitution was being discussed, the Framers did seem to take the stance that simply being born in the US was not enough to make a person a natural born citizen. But, they didn’t attempt to truly define the phrase. They were simply attempting to keep European big wigs from coming to the new country, claiming citizenship, then attempting to be elected to a position of power when they held no allegiance to the USA, and held dual citizenship.
I am not sure you have that right.
There are three possibilities for being a “natural born citizen:”
1) Both parents are citizens of the United States (naturalized or other.) There doesn’t seem to be a debate that the child would, if born in the country or territory be a “natural born citizen” and be qualified for the office of president.
2) One parent is a citizen, the other is not. This has not been decided. Even Vattel’s “Law of Nations” does not take this into account. This is most likely because at the time, most stayed within 20 miles of their birthplace.
3) Both parents are not citizens. There does not seem to be a doubt that the child is not a “natural born citizen.’ As you and others have noted, the young country known as the United States of America with 3 international powers within spitting distance (France, Spain and England) could have a child born in the country to parents of those countries and then become president. That was what the Framers were worried about. That is the genesis of the phrase “natural born citizen.”
But the kicker is the option two. That is the scenario that is not well established. We do know Chester A. Arthur’s father was Canadian at the time of Chester’s birth. That fact was well known but the issue of his eligibility was never raised or questioned. This means there is precedence for child born of a US citizen mother and a alien father being eligible to be President. (Some have postulated that as Arthur’s father became a citizen after his birth but before he was elected, that made Arthur a “natural born citizen.” I don’t believe the text of the Constitution supports that at all.)
There are some nations that go, as you say, with the “bloodline” to establish citizenship. There are some nations that go with just “place of birth” (of the soil) to establish citizenship.
As a country, we seem to hold to be a natural born citizen requires birth on US soil or territory, allegiance to the country, and parent( s ) that are citizens.
My point is only this….. it is unsettled law. It were otherwise, it would be easy to point to a single case or statement where someone says “this is what a natural born citizen is…..”
There is no such case.
As such, and with the precedence of Arthur, I think we have to say that Obama is eligible absent of any direct proof, law or precedence to the contrary.
I hate to say that, but I look at this that is it not Obama in the White House, it is a guy that I like and who I think is doing a magnificent job. Hypothetically I want him to stay. I want to see cases, law and precedents that would throw that guy out.
It is a lot easier to feel clean about this when you aren’t looking to remove someone you dislike. It gets in the way of the blindfolded lady on the Supreme Court Building. ;)
It’s unsettled law, to a degree. Much of it has been defined by law, this is what made McCain eligible to be president as a natural born citizen, even though he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. If a child had been born to 2 Panamanians in the Zone, that child would be considered natural born, unless either parent was “diplomatic personnel of a foreign entity.”
The original intent in the Framer’s minds was to convey natural born citizenship to the child of male citizen. It was mostly a patriarchal society at the time. But, they never truly defined it, expecting Congress to do so.
That is most certainly not correct. The case before the court was whether Ark was a citizen of the United States as his parents were not and by law could not be citizens. The SCOTUS only concluded he was a citizen and did not give up that citizenship when he returned to China for a period of time. Ark was never considered to be a “natural born citizen.â€
Quoting the decision:
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
The court does not make an official declaration of “natural born citizen.â€
I have argued this very point myself. I pointed out that the Court didn’t use the words “natural born” to describe Mr Wong. It was then pointed out to me that the Dicta is irrelevant to the Holding, and the Holding was that the Lower Court’s Ruling was upheld without exception. (Meaning the previous case from which the ruling was appealed.) In that Previous case, the court did indeed use the term “natural born citizen”, so if the Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s ruling without exception, they are upholding what the Lower Court said as well. Also, Attorneys for the Government argued before the court that a ruling upholding the lower court would result in Wong Kim Ark being able to be President, which is a direct reference to “natural born citizen.”
It doesn’t matter anyway. Subsequent lawyers have interpreted Wong Kim Ark as holding that anyone born on the soil is a “natural born citizen”, so whether the language of the holding says that or not, that is how it has been interpreted by lawyers and judges ever since.
This interpretation has become so pervasive that nowadays most Americans incorrectly think the same thing. (Being born on the soil makes you a “natural born citizen.”)
Reading through your response, it seems likely that you are a “Fogbow” or “Obamaconspiracy” denizen. You have got their talking points down pat, and the odds of you knowing this stuff on your own are just unlikely. It doesn’t matter much to me, I’ve whipped Dr. Conspiracies ass so many times it still hurts when he sits down, and there isn’t a one of you that can match knowledge or wits with me.
He may have or may not have. The fact of the matter is he is not “describing†anything, but simply quoting Vattel as a source of laws between nations.
You are apparently unaware that all questions of Citizenship are dependent upon the laws between nations. If there were no other nations, there wouldn’t need to be any such term as “citizen”. (Everyone on the planet would be a “citizen.”) That the term exists implies an inherent differentiation between the people of one nation and that of another.
(Remember, the case in question deals with the seizing of goods between combatant nations where ownership of the cargo and vessel rested on the citizenship of the participants. “The Venus†case is much like “The Prizes†cases in the Civil War. It is a maritime and treaty case, not a case resting solely on American Law.)
I don’t care if it’s a case about who owns twinkies, Justice Marshall is specifically citing what he believes to be the best source available on what constitutes a Citizen, and that Source is Vattel.
I only cited a small portion of that case. Justice Washington also cites Vattel as the source for what defines a citizen. I will point out that they are NOT citing Blackstone. (English Common law crap.)
Vattel may or may not have had an influence on the Framers, but the Framers were working from a different translation of Vattel than Marshall.
Yet Minor (upon which much of Ark is decided) says something different. In Minor the SCOTUS says that there is no doubt that a person with both parents who are citizens of the country is a natural born citizen. However, what the court did not decide as it was not a part of the case is whether a person with one citizen parent is a “natural born citizen.â€
There is a simple reason for that. In 1875 there was no such thing as dual allegiance. Women who married American Husbands were automatically naturalized upon marriage to be American citizens. Therefore any child born with an American Father automatically had an American mother as well, and it didn’t matter what she was prior to that time. By the same operation of the law, if an American Woman married a foreign man, she took on his citizenship and became a citizen of his country. This Dual allegiance shit was only made possible by the passage of the Cable act in 1922 and the Women’s citizenship act of 1934, which further expanded it.
So to answer your implied question, there was no such thing as “one citizen parent.”
“Naturalization†is the process of making something to be like “natural.â€
This is a gross misunderstanding of the term in a legal sense.
Not it is not. It is exactly right.
If that were the case, than a “naturalized citizen†would be the same as a “natural born citizen,†and that is simply not true. You are going where no legal foundation exists.
The only distinction between a “natural, “born citizen” ” and a naturalized citizen is eligibility for the Presidency. All Citizens have the exact same rights but for that one distinction.
There is a great deal of evidence that the Founders based our entire system of government on the principles of natural law, and explicitly rejected the principles of English Common law.
This is patently false. “Natural law†deals with the rights of man bestowed upon him by God / nature. English Law deals with how those rights are protected and the interaction between people with natural rights.
It is NOT patently false that our founders based our system of government on the Principles of natural law. Read the damn debates in the Convention and ratification debates in the state. There are many references to God, natural law, Grotius, Puffendorf, Locke, and Vattel. Hell, the Declaration of Independence begins with:
As for explicitly rejecting the principles of English common law, Here is what James Madison (Considered the Father of the Constitution. You may have heard of him?) had to say about it.
In 1875 there was no such thing as dual allegiance.
No one is talking about “dual allegiance.”
However, once again Minor recognizes that there the case of one citizen parent and one non-citizen parent has not been decided. Clearly the Supreme Court recognizes that such a case exists. Your position that it was “impossible” does not match the reality of the situation.
Also it is important to note that Vattel acknowledges the idea of parents of different citizenship. Vattel says most nations in that case go with “citizenship of the blood” and follow the citizenship of the father.
Whether you agree with that conclusion matters not. What matters is that the Supreme Court and the law of the land has not addressed fully the idea of a child with parents of differing citizenship.
So to answer your implied question, there was no such thing as “one citizen parent.â€
Read Minor. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
. There is no provision in English law to throw off allegiance to the sovereign.
This is false. A British citizen could become a citizen of another country by moving to that country and disavowing allegiance to the British monarch.
What is false is your understanding. A British SUBJECT can do that now, because Queen Victoria signed the law which allows it to happen. Prior to that, a British SUBJECT was NOT permitted to cast off his allegiance to the crown in any manner whatsoever. If one did as you suggested, he would upon being discovered, been arrested and charged. Do you not recall what happened to British men who tried to leave England and Join the United States prior to the War of 1812? They grabbed them off ships and took them back to England.
While I am pointing out the difference between a “subject” and a “citizen” I will mention this. In 1787, the term “citizen” was little used. It was actually rather obscure, and generally referred to the inhabitant of a city. It is thanks to the efforts of the founders that the term has become ubiquitous and that it refers to members of a nation. Just a year or so ago, it was discovered that Thomas Jefferson had originally written the word “subject” in the Declaration of Independence, but went back and erased it, writing instead in it’s place the word “citizen.”
The American Revolution was more than the throwing off of the monarchy, but also the taking of British soil. The Framers of the Constitution and Articles of Confederation recognized that many of them (all in fact) were born on British soil (the colonies) and originally had an allegiance to the British crown. That allegiance and and soil was now dissolved.
And one of the Characteristics of Monarchy they threw off was the Ability of the Crown to claim anyone born on their soil as a SUBJECT of the Crown. Jus Soli is Feudal in origin, and served the purpose of the Lord, not that of the peasant. America’s experiment with freedom was intended to sever such ties between Lords and Vassals. To borrow a term from Madison, it is an “anti-republican doctrine.”
……because English Common law said that being born on the soil makes one a Subject.
This is false too. The English common law requires birth, domicile and allegiance to be a citizen except for certain special circumstances.
Read Blackstone (and some history) and get back to me.
I would point out that the British Crown has never relied on any of this “born on the soil†nonsense to select THEIR Chief executive.
Being the Royal family is still born on English soil, resides in England and owes allegiance to the sovereign, you are trying to make a distinction where no exists. As such, your premise fails.
Well firstly, let me rebut your point with this:
http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Argument:_Foreign_monarchs_cannot_adequately_represent_Australians
Secondly, you misunderstood MY point. My point was not to address whether or not a ruling royal was born on English Soil, but to point out that only someone of Royal BLOOD (Jus Sanguinus) was permitted to Rule the Country! They do not allow someone of non-royal blood to be King.
In other words, they have a Parent based “natural born citizen” requirement for the Throne. Get it?
Not in a legal sense.
Amazing. Here you are claiming there is no difference between “naturalized citizen” and a “natural born citizen” and then you point out the difference. Clearly there is a difference or else there would not be a need for the legal distinction.
Please read the discussions. “Natural Law” deals with the rights of men. English common law deals with how those rights are implemented in a government. The US system is a combination of the two – not just “Natural Law” as you are postulating.
Once again, I remind you that many early decisions from the Supreme Court were based on English Common Law.
I am not saying the US based the entire legal system on English Common law. What I am saying is that it was, along with Natural Law, a basis for the Constitional government we have now.
So now you wish to move to impressment to argue the British did not allow people to change citizenship? That might be a good argument except the British did recognize the idea of changing citizenship but when it came to impressment, viewed sailors on the sea as being without the protection of country (no soil) and therefore allowed to be seized. It should be noted the British also impressed Americans born after the Treaty of Paris, so the logic you are basing this upon is flawed. However, you still must remember that British citizens could go to France and other European nations where they could renounce citizenship of Britain and become a naturalized citizen of another country.
Basically your position flies in the face of reality. Britain allowed the naturalization of citizens and by reciprocal agreements allowed the naturalization of citizens to other countries. Once again, please read Vattel as this is part of the “Law of Nations.”
Please read Minor as I suggested. There the Supreme Court recognizes there is no practical difference between “citizen” and “subject” other than the system of government. That is why it is believed Jefferson changed the wording in the Declaration. By saying “subjects,” he was only including those under a monarchy. “Citizens,” on the other hand, meant allegiance to a country or monarch.
I will only respond to this nonesense from your last post which was going up as I typed my previous one:
Which has nothing to do with the Monarch being a citizen or not.
Anyway, it brings us back to another salient point. If we won the war of Independence, why is British Common law (which we broke forever when we rebelled) still governing us? .
It doesn’t. British Common law serves as a foundation (one of several) upon which American law was built. If you look back at early Supreme Court decisions, you will find the constant quoting of English Common Law as precedent as “American Law†was still in its infancy and lacked the weight of precedence. (“Precedence,†by the way, is a principle found in English Common Law.â€)
You aren’t grasping the point. British law on SUBJECTUDE was explicitly thrown out. British Law on the mundane was used until it was replaced by later statutory law. It is the difference between a SUBJECT and a CITIZEN that is the center of the entire discussion.
An adherence to English Law on the matter of what constitutes a citizen is downright silly for a Nation that rejected the premise of being an English Subject. Again, as James Madison said:
I will only respond to this nonesense from your last post which was going up as I typed my previous one:
Your input was not solicited in the first place. I was attempting to have a discussion of this issue with William Teach. You’re involvement was mostly an irritating distraction interspersed with faulty facts and faulty logic. Now that you’ve had your head handed to you, retreat *IS*is your best option.
In other words, they have a Parent based “natural born citizen†requirement for the Throne. Get it?
Which has nothing to do with the Monarch being a citizen or not.
Comment by gitarcarver— February 3, 2012 @ 1:47 pm
What on earth is the matter with you? I have argued this issue with a LOT of people, many of them Liberal Democrat Obots, and I have yet to see as dense of an opponent as yourself. How do you GET the wrong point of everything?
Again, firstly the British use the term “Subject.” They do not use the term “Citizen. Secondly, the issue has nothing to do with whether or not a member of the Royal Family *IS* a Subject, it has to do with the fact that the requirements for the British throne are that you have to be a member of the Royal Family BY BLOOD.
The British require that a King must be BY THE BLOOD, and NOT by the “Soil.” It is an explicit endorsement of jus sanguinus for their rulers, and a rejection of jus soli as a requirement.
I suspect the reason you always go off in the weeds with your responses is because you simply have no legitimate answer to the points I put forth.
In any case, this comment thread is a poor place for a proper discussion. I have documents to post in support of everything I say, and you cannot see the actual documents in “text” form. I can be found on a website called “Talk Polywell” under the name “Diogenes” and I can be found on “Free Republic” under the name DiogenesLamp.
To William Teach:
Now that THAT foolishness is done with, would you like to resume? I feel as if I never got a chance to hear YOUR input because I was spending too much time addressing that court jester.
What are YOUR thoughts on the subject? (And perhaps this discussion should be continued somewhere where image files can be posted.) John Jay’s letter to George Washington was the initiating event behind the entire issue.
Look, it is clear that you have issues separating what you say and what you mean. You first said that law in America had nothing to do with English Common Law and that American Law was only founded on Natural Law.
In fact, in Madison’s defense of the First Amendment when proposed in Congress, he quotes as a defense Blackstone and English Common Law. He uses Natural Law to state the right of Free Speech and then Common Law to propose how that freedom is implemented. Natural Law is the moral laws which define rights and moral conduct. Common Law dictates how those rights and mores interact.
It is also fact that in the Ark case, the Court cites citations from Common Law to continue to make the point that Ark was a citizen. If Common Law is not a part of American jurisprudence, then please explain why it was cited so much by courts and the Framers?
You and I both know you can’t explain that which leads to the inescapable conclusion that your supposition is false.
English Common law is as much of a foundation of American Law as Natural Law. You can argue the point all you want, but that doesn’t make it true. Despite your quoting Madison out of context, you cannot escape the fact that for the early part of American jurisprudence, the Judicial Branch relied upon English Common law and precedence. Bury your head in the sand all you want, but your point is factually wrong.
Oh dear. I have answered every point you have made. You, on the other hand, go off on tangents. Somehow we went from the term of “natural born citizen” (which you believe is the same as a naturalized citizen) to the blood line of kings. You can sit there and say we are “off in the weeds,” but we aren’t there because of anything I have said.
Right. Because a comment thread is the worst place for comments. Good grief.
Wow. I didn’t realize I had to seek your approval to comment on Teach’s blog.
There is no need for me to retreat from someone like you. In fact, it is the duty of people to stand up to ignorance.
Now, with that being said, if you want to keep exchanging insults, I won’t go down that path. I won’t let you get away with it, but I am not going to initiate it.
Have a nice day.