In response to:

Obama, Rubio Birthers Should Read the Law

Hydr0x Wrote: May 30, 2012 4:38 PM
I just don't think people are understanding this "Natural Born Citizen" debate or the roots of the law that is at hand. Instead of making the arguments here ad nauseam I will point you to one article and one treatise on law which this very wording in the Constitution was used to debate the point during ratification. I cannot find fault with the reasoning in this article here but if it is not scholarly enough for some I have more in depth articles. The book, Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns is the source of the debate on what is and what is not a Natural Born Citizen. " The book can be found here
wiseone Wrote: May 30, 2012 5:52 PM
De Vattel died before the Revolutionary War. He was never an American citizen. I don't accept definitions of legal concepts in this country that were developed by foreigners just because they used the same or similar terms. I especially reject such definitions if the cited foreigner died before the concept of government BY the people was introduced.

You might as well tell me how you think Marx or Hitler would have defined "natural born citizen."
b_niles57 Wrote: May 30, 2012 7:35 PM
Conservative "thinking" works in weird ways. Some talking head somewhere (is it Rush?) pops up with an obscure figure like de Vattel to prop up the Conservative conspiracy theory du jour, and boom, everyone thinks they are experts on these posts. Dude, you are like the 300th person here to bring up de Vattel. He doesn't have anything to do with what our law is. He's just some Swiss guy who wrote a book. And bringing him up saying "people don't understand..." just sounds silly
wiseone Wrote: May 30, 2012 9:21 PM
I didn't bring up Vattel. HydroX did. And if you would read with any comprehension at all you would see that I am dismissing Vattel as an authority.

But you can't do that, can you b_niles. You're the kind of @sshole who counters complaints about vote fraud by bringing up Florida 2000 and then claims you weren't claiming it was fraud, just "messed up".

You are a liberal clown. You wouldn't have thought Florida was "messed up" in 2000 if your guy had won. We know this because Florida had all the same problem in 1996, but that was OK with you @ssholes because Clinton won.

That's how you libs judge everything. When you don't get your way it's "messed up".

Too bad you never grew up.
Georgia Boy 61 Wrote: May 31, 2012 12:58 AM
Wiseone, you aren't remotely "wise" at all, but a fool and an ideologue. De Vattel's work was a commonly-cited reference used by statesmen, legal scholars and diplomats all over Europe as well as in the colonies; it was a standard work during the time immediately before and during our revolutionary period. Your dismissal of it only proves you are historically illiterate.
Georgia Boy 61 Wrote: May 31, 2012 12:59 AM
You are an ignorant fool whose knowledge of history wouldn't fill a thimble.
b_niles57 Wrote: May 31, 2012 8:57 AM
WIse one- I WAS replying to hydrox. I WAS agreeing with you. Sorry the position of the post confused you, but once you post, you can't undo it, so there it sits. I think if you read my post, it's prety clear I was agreeing with your position and disagreeing with hyrox.

I will ignore your laughable insults and say that you must be the only person on the planet, Liberal or Conservative, who doesn't see that, no matter who you support and what you think of the outcome, the Florida election was messed up. Sorry this makes you so angry, so called wise one.
b_niles57 Wrote: May 31, 2012 9:24 AM
Wow, you are making me side with WiseOne, something I ever thought would happen. Georgia, perhaps on you home planet of Mars the legal system is based on what books lawmakers happen to be reading, but here on Earth and in America our laws are based on A)What is actually in the Constitution and B) How the Constitution has been interpreted by Judges. According to you, if the FF were reading Harry Potter, we should interpret the Constitution to be based on the rules of Quidditch. Your insults only make your own ignorance that much more apparent.
Skipper13 Wrote: May 31, 2012 12:50 PM
Really wiseone? A writer whether Swiss or American whose writings at the time of our Constitution's being formed was widely read and accepted by most of our founding fathers is somehow not relevant because why exactly? Really? When the term "Natural Born Citizen" was never used or described any place else during that time except by Vatel? Then just where did the founding fathers exactly find that term anywhere else and what else could they have meant by the use of that particular term where they placed it in the constitution? Methinks you are not very wise, oh wiseone!
Skipper13 Wrote: May 31, 2012 1:00 PM
Yes, the term used in the constitution was borrowed directly from Vatel's writings, so yes, the writing of Vatel is relevant in discovery of what that particular term's meaning is. Why is that such a difficult concept? Judges clearly mis-interpret the constitution all the time, so relying completely on Judges to "tell" us what the constitution "really" says is part of the problem and not the complete solution either.
b_niles57 Wrote: Jun 01, 2012 10:13 AM
So... we should just rely on YOU, Mr. Skipper13, expert on all matters Constitutional. Got it.

Birtherism -- the belief that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, not in the United States -- pretty much died last year when the White House released a copy of the president's long-form birth certificate showing he was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961. After that, the number of Americans who doubted Obama's place of birth dropped dramatically.

But not to zero. In recent days, there has been a mini-resurgence of birther talk, from Arizona, where the secretary of state questioned Obama's eligibility to be on the ballot, to Iowa, where some Republicans want to require presidential candidates to prove...