Author Topic: Both Parties Agree: This Woman Might Be Our First Female President  (Read 2264 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline AbaraXas

  • Enemy of the State
  • Technical
  • ****
  • Posts: 15,953
  • Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Re: Both Parties Agree: This Woman Might Be Our First Female President
« Reply #25 on: June 14, 2018, 07:25:22 PM »
No sir!  You have to figure out what the men who wrote the Constitution understood that term to mean and it is quite clear that they understood it to mean those born in the country to parents who are themselves citizens and none other!

..and the Framers didn't say 'born of this country to two citizen parents'. That was English Common Law and George Mason specifically said that US Common Law was not English Common Law.

At that, the federalist papers as well as all the comments of the framers on the subject, more closely align with simply being a citizen of at birth versus naturalized, some even state it was just to be a citizen of at least one state at birth.   http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined/

The dual parentage doesn't even fit with the founding principles of this nation. That was part of the heraldic tradition of English Common Law that was the part of what we were shedding in being a unique nation. Everything in our founding was in shedding the idea that you were bound by your parentage- that is the old caste type system- not ours.

Offline driftdiver

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,897
  • I could eat it raw but why when I have fire
Re: Both Parties Agree: This Woman Might Be Our First Female President
« Reply #26 on: June 14, 2018, 07:35:38 PM »
No sir!  You have to figure out what the men who wrote the Constitution understood that term to mean and it is quite clear that they understood it to mean those born in the country to parents who are themselves citizens and none other!

Uh no.  That's wishful thinking
Fools mock, tongues wag, babies cry and goats bleat.

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 30,247
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Both Parties Agree: This Woman Might Be Our First Female President
« Reply #27 on: June 14, 2018, 07:42:25 PM »
..and the Framers didn't say 'born of this country to two citizen parents'. That was English Common Law and George Mason specifically said that US Common Law was not English Common Law.

At that, the federalist papers as well as all the comments of the framers on the subject, more closely align with simply being a citizen of at birth versus naturalized, some even state it was just to be a citizen of at least one state at birth.   http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined/

The dual parentage doesn't even fit with the founding principles of this nation. That was part of the heraldic tradition of English Common Law that was the part of what we were shedding in being a unique nation. Everything in our founding was in shedding the idea that you were bound by your parentage- that is the old caste type system- not ours.

In English law there is no guestion as to who can ascend to the throne but that would not be the case in the U. S. That fact caused the founders great consternation as to how they were to prevent anyone with divided loyalties to become president and they ultimately agreed on Vattel's work to guide them.  Vattel  defines  NBC as a person born in the country to parents who are themselves citizens.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2018, 07:43:09 PM by Bigun »

Online Frank Cannon

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 22,594
  • Jeff Flake Is A Fag
    • Bum Wine
Re: Both Parties Agree: This Woman Might Be Our First Female President
« Reply #28 on: June 14, 2018, 07:43:11 PM »
I was going to post that I would vote for her because she is hot......but I see we have a good old fashion birther dumpster fire raging away. Good grief. I don't have it in me anymore to even start to argue this bullshit anymore and besides, who cares.
Two Liters Is A Soft Drink, Not An Engine Size.

Offline driftdiver

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,897
  • I could eat it raw but why when I have fire
Re: Both Parties Agree: This Woman Might Be Our First Female President
« Reply #29 on: June 14, 2018, 07:44:20 PM »
In English law there is no guestion as to who can ascend to the throne but that would not be the case in the U. S. That fact caused the founders great consternation as to how they were to prevent anyone with divided loyalties to become president and they ultimately agreed on Vattel's work to guide them.  Vattel  defines  NBC as a person born in the country to parents who are themselves citizens.

That is not in the constitution or the law.
Fools mock, tongues wag, babies cry and goats bleat.

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 30,247
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Both Parties Agree: This Woman Might Be Our First Female President
« Reply #30 on: June 14, 2018, 07:46:59 PM »
I was going to post that I would vote for her because she is hot......but I see we have a good old fashion birther dumpster fire raging away. Good grief. I don't have it in me anymore to even start to argue this bullshit anymore and besides, who cares.

You are correct @Frank Cannon .  This has been argued here ad nauseum and those who argued that a mere citizen at birth is eligible to be president lost badly!

Offline Sanguine

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 26,036
Re: Both Parties Agree: This Woman Might Be Our First Female President
« Reply #31 on: June 14, 2018, 07:49:44 PM »
I was going to post that I would vote for her because she is hot......but I see we have a good old fashion birther dumpster fire raging away. Good grief. I don't have it in me anymore to even start to argue this bullshit anymore and besides, who cares.

Frank, it is so much better than the other ongoing argument.  This one is almost refreshing. 
Cui bono?

Walk in Wisdom
See then that you walk circumspectly, not as fools but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil.

But the noble make noble plans, and by noble deeds they stand.

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 30,247
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Both Parties Agree: This Woman Might Be Our First Female President
« Reply #32 on: June 14, 2018, 08:04:58 PM »
That is not in the constitution or the law.

The Constitution IS law!

Online INVAR

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11,654
  • Dread To Tread
    • Sword At The Ready
Re: Both Parties Agree: This Woman Might Be Our First Female President
« Reply #33 on: June 14, 2018, 08:08:13 PM »
The Constitution IS law!

Uhhhhhhh.... it's "law" only on paper.

If today proved anything, it is that the government is no longer bound or constrained by the "law".  They will make it up as they go and exonerate themselves from any criminality and wrong-doing while going after political targets of opportunity.
Fart for freedom, fart for liberty and fart proudly.  - Benjamin Franklin

...Obsta principiis—Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers and destroyers press upon them so fast that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon [the] American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour." - John Adams, February 6, 1775

Offline driftdiver

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,897
  • I could eat it raw but why when I have fire
Re: Both Parties Agree: This Woman Might Be Our First Female President
« Reply #34 on: June 14, 2018, 08:09:39 PM »
The Constitution IS law!

Sure it is.  But the definition is not in the Constitution.
Fools mock, tongues wag, babies cry and goats bleat.

Offline driftdiver

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,897
  • I could eat it raw but why when I have fire
Re: Both Parties Agree: This Woman Might Be Our First Female President
« Reply #35 on: June 14, 2018, 08:15:07 PM »
Uhhhhhhh.... it's "law" only on paper.

If today proved anything, it is that the government is no longer bound or constrained by the "law".  They will make it up as they go and exonerate themselves from any criminality and wrong-doing while going after political targets of opportunity.

The written law says she's a NBC.  It's only through wishful interpretation of non binding documents that its arguable she's not.

So it's hardly an equal comparison.  Regardless the intent of the requirement was to ensure the person didn't have divided loyalties.   It's quite clear she is loyal to America.
Fools mock, tongues wag, babies cry and goats bleat.

Offline AbaraXas

  • Enemy of the State
  • Technical
  • ****
  • Posts: 15,953
  • Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Re: Both Parties Agree: This Woman Might Be Our First Female President
« Reply #36 on: June 14, 2018, 08:16:01 PM »
In English law there is no guestion as to who can ascend to the throne but that would not be the case in the U. S. That fact caused the founders great consternation as to how they were to prevent anyone with divided loyalties to become president and they ultimately agreed on Vattel's work to guide them.  Vattel  defines  NBC as a person born in the country to parents who are themselves citizens.

The problem is Vattel's Laws of Nations was somewhat obscure at the time and is often confused with the philosopher Wolffe's general statement of 'the natural laws of nations' as a statement on sovereignty. This is one of those cases where the blogsphere recently found a reference to 'laws of nations' and then 1. made the assumption that it was referring specifically to Vattel's work. 2. Applied to this specific case. 3. Would be considered the over-riding law of the land.

None of the founders referred to Vattel's work in the Federalist Papers (at the time, Ben Franklin had brought just one copy into the US for the Library of Congress and Washington's own Library didn't even have a copy recorded until 1789, well after the Constitution phrase was written), at that, when referring the specific issue of NBC in the Federalist Papers, the founders themselves completely contradicted Vattel on the issue.

And finally, if we are going to use Vattel as the source meaning for that, it opens up a whole other can of worms because Vattel's Laws of Nations as a whole, is not compatible with the US system whatsoever. It is actually highly feudal and oppressive in nature. Give it a read and see if you think it was a guide for our founders. http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm

I understand you are completely sold on this.. I had a lot of rows during the birther wars and I know once you are set on an idea, it is hard to shake it. But I do suggest reading that work as a whole (it isn't very long) and decide if you want that to be in any way used as a guide for what the Constitution means.


« Last Edit: June 14, 2018, 08:18:51 PM by AbaraXas »

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 30,247
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Both Parties Agree: This Woman Might Be Our First Female President
« Reply #37 on: June 14, 2018, 08:20:11 PM »
The problem is Vattel's Laws of Nations was somewhat obscure at the time and is often confused with the philosopher Wolfe's general statement of 'the natural laws of nations' as a statement on sovereignty. This is one of those cases where the blogsphere recently found a reference to 'laws of nations' and then 1. made the assumption that it was referring specifically to Vattel's work. 2. Applied to this specific case. 3. Would be considered the over-riding law of the land.

None of the founders referred to Vattel's work in the Federalist Papers (at the time, Ben Franklin had brought just one copy into the US for the Library of Congress and Washington's own Library didn't even have a copy recorded until 1789, well after the Constitution phrase was written), at that, when referring the specific issue of NBC in the Federalist Papers, the founders themselves completely contradicted Vattel on the issue.

And finally, if we are going to use Vattel as the source meaning for that, it opens up a whole other can of worms because Vattel's Laws of Nations as a whole, is not compatible with the US system whatsoever. It is actually highly feudal and oppressive in nature. Give it a read and see if you think it was a guide for our founders. http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm

Obscure or not, there were three copies in the room at Philadelphia as the Constitution was being drafted. One English translation and two in the original French.

Offline AbaraXas

  • Enemy of the State
  • Technical
  • ****
  • Posts: 15,953
  • Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Re: Both Parties Agree: This Woman Might Be Our First Female President
« Reply #38 on: June 14, 2018, 08:32:36 PM »
Obscure or not, there were three copies in the room at Philadelphia as the Constitution was being drafted. One English translation and two in the original French.

I'm sure they also had a copy of the classic medical guide Württembergische Hebammenordnung in the libraries at well. That doesn't mean the founders used it to define NBC as someone who was born naturally versus through the cesarean technique.

Again, one has to reference their exact words on the subject (the earlier post I made upthread) and the founders actual words did not even imply '2 parentage on land' birth but simply citizen at birth versus naturalized. We don't have to guess what they thought and try to guess it was some book in a library of about ten thousand books (at the time) they may or may not have used. They told us almost directly.

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 30,247
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Both Parties Agree: This Woman Might Be Our First Female President
« Reply #39 on: June 14, 2018, 08:41:13 PM »
I'm sure they also had a copy of the classic medical guide Württembergische Hebammenordnung in the libraries at well. That doesn't mean the founders used it to define NBC as someone who was born naturally versus through the cesarean technique.

Again, one has to reference their exact words on the subject (the earlier post I made upthread) and the founders actual words did not even imply '2 parentage on land' birth but simply citizen at birth versus naturalized. We don't have to guess what they thought and try to guess it was some book in a library of about ten thousand books (at the time) they may or may not have used. They told us almost directly.

I'm done with this. Said all I have to say on the matter and you are free to believe whatever you like but keep in mind that under your definition there is absolutely nothing to prevent some radical Muslim from impregnating a woman, smuggling her into the country to give birth to the child and have that child be president of the United States a few years later.  I reject the notion that the founders did not think about that and do their best to prevent it from happening.

Offline driftdiver

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,897
  • I could eat it raw but why when I have fire
Re: Both Parties Agree: This Woman Might Be Our First Female President
« Reply #40 on: June 14, 2018, 08:42:33 PM »
I'm done with this. Said all I have to say on the matter and you are free to believe whatever you like but keep in mind that under your definition there is absolutely nothing to prevent some radical Muslim from impregnating a woman, smuggling her into the country to give birth to the child and have that child be president of the United States a few years later.  I reject the notion that the founders did not think about that and do their best to prevent it from happening.

Oh you mean Obama.  Yeah nothing to stop that except the voters
Fools mock, tongues wag, babies cry and goats bleat.

Online jmyrlefuller

  • J. Myrle Fuller
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 14,557
  • Handsome Beast
Re: Both Parties Agree: This Woman Might Be Our First Female President
« Reply #41 on: June 14, 2018, 08:57:03 PM »
I'm done with this. Said all I have to say on the matter and you are free to believe whatever you like but keep in mind that under your definition there is absolutely nothing to prevent some radical Muslim from impregnating a woman, smuggling her into the country to give birth to the child and have that child be president of the United States a few years later.  I reject the notion that the founders did not think about that and do their best to prevent it from happening.
The 14th Amendment bestowed natural born citizenship to any person born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction, which includes those born to legal immigrants. (I would argue that anchor babies of illegal aliens do not meet the "subject to its jurisdiction" criteria.)

Congress has authority to define natural-born citizenship however they see fit. Why? Because the Virginia legislature, in 1784 (when the Articles of Confederation gave the states more power and sovereignty over citizenship issues), legally declared the marquis de Lafayette a natural-born citizen, even though he was born in France. This was in the same decade the phrase was put in the Constitution. With that, they established that all previous English common law definitions were irrelevant and invalid; without any formal Constitutional definition, it goes down to the plain letter of the language.

In short, the federal government has the right to determine who is a natural born citizen. They granted it to persons born here and subject to its jurisdiction in 1868. Nikki Haley was born here and subject to its jurisdiction in 1972. Ergo, she is a natural born citizen.

Xenophobes and birthers are wrong, as usual.

(edited for corrections)
« Last Edit: June 15, 2018, 06:38:39 AM by jmyrlefuller »

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 32,524
  • International Cracker of Wise
Re: Both Parties Agree: This Woman Might Be Our First Female President
« Reply #42 on: June 14, 2018, 09:03:27 PM »
I'm done with this. Said all I have to say on the matter and you are free to believe whatever you like but keep in mind that under your definition there is absolutely nothing to prevent some radical Muslim from impregnating a woman, smuggling her into the country to give birth to the child and have that child be president of the United States a few years later.  I reject the notion that the founders did not think about that and do their best to prevent it from happening.

Who knows?  The Press and the rest of the Dems always seem to find the law book when it's a Republican under discussion.
I will NOT comply.
Thanks to Cripplecreek and Oceander for the medal!      

Offline AbaraXas

  • Enemy of the State
  • Technical
  • ****
  • Posts: 15,953
  • Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Re: Both Parties Agree: This Woman Might Be Our First Female President
« Reply #43 on: June 14, 2018, 09:04:22 PM »
I'll add one more little snippet on the matter. Many of the founders were Freemasons. At that, you'll find many parallels in some of the way the system is structured and the structure of the Lodge.

One of the key, most important principles of brothers is that it doesn't matter who your parents are or your situation at birth, but who you are as a man.  As is confirmed by what they wrote, they were far less concerned by who one's parents were than they were about the status of that person as a man.

Offline AbaraXas

  • Enemy of the State
  • Technical
  • ****
  • Posts: 15,953
  • Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Re: Both Parties Agree: This Woman Might Be Our First Female President
« Reply #44 on: June 14, 2018, 09:07:33 PM »
I'm done with this. Said all I have to say on the matter and you are free to believe whatever you like but keep in mind that under your definition there is absolutely nothing to prevent some radical Muslim from impregnating a woman, smuggling her into the country to give birth to the child and have that child be president of the United States a few years later.  I reject the notion that the founders did not think about that and do their best to prevent it from happening.

But who that child becomes can be completely different than who his parents were. Many of our greatest Presidents and other leaders have had scoundrel parents (and conversely, many of our worst presidents had saints for parents)- who they became was on themselves, not on who their parents were. That's the entire point of our system. A Satanist, Communist, Cannibal parent can create the most Godly, wholesome child.

We don't immediately reject someone because of who bumped uglies to create them. We judge their worth on their own actions. 

That's kind of one of the most important points in the American Experience. It is what has always made us unique.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2018, 09:13:19 PM by AbaraXas »

Offline sneakypete

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,944
Re: Both Parties Agree: This Woman Might Be Our First Female President
« Reply #45 on: June 14, 2018, 09:48:41 PM »
You are correct @Frank Cannon .  This has been argued here ad nauseum and those who argued that a mere citizen at birth is eligible to be president lost badly!

@Frank Cannon   @Bigun

Is there ANYWHERE it HASN'T been argued until everyone's eyes got glassy from exhaustion,without even a single mind being changed?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.

Offline sneakypete

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,944
Re: Both Parties Agree: This Woman Might Be Our First Female President
« Reply #46 on: June 14, 2018, 09:49:30 PM »
ZZZZZ.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.

Online Frank Cannon

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 22,594
  • Jeff Flake Is A Fag
    • Bum Wine
Two Liters Is A Soft Drink, Not An Engine Size.

Online Applewood

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,213
Re: Both Parties Agree: This Woman Might Be Our First Female President
« Reply #48 on: June 14, 2018, 11:00:19 PM »
I remember arguing about the NBC issue when Ted Cruz was still running for President. There were even a few state court cases trying to remove Ted's name from the ballot because of the NBC issue.  All of the cases were defeated, as I recall, although most of them were dismissed for reasons other than NBC.  Seemed like the courts really didn't want to deal with that issue.   Then once Ted was defeated for the nomination, the issue disappeared...again.

I think it's going to have to be decided by SCOTUS.  Congress sure as hell isn't interested in defining NBC clearly through legislation.   If Mrs. Haley decides to run, the matter can be brought up again and hopefully this time, it will be decided once and for all.

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 32,524
  • International Cracker of Wise
Re: Both Parties Agree: This Woman Might Be Our First Female President
« Reply #49 on: June 15, 2018, 12:15:40 AM »
This might actually get to SCOTUS.  A bunch of cases about Obama got tossed for lack of standing.  But, now that's a Republican potential candidate, the Judges will be crawling all over each other trying to throw her out.

Even Electors in the College lacked standing, as did other Candidates.
I will NOT comply.
Thanks to Cripplecreek and Oceander for the medal!      


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf