• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Kamala Does Not Qualify to be Vice President

American Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
253
Location
, ,
You continue to argue citizenship and I keep pointing out the distinction of being a Natural Born Citizen. Both are citizens but only one can hold executive office, LEGALLY.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,596
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
You continue to argue citizenship and I keep pointing out the distinction of being a Natural Born Citizen. Both are citizens but only one can hold executive office, LEGALLY.
No, I never argued citizenship. You are the one that doesn't get it. You seem not to understand that “Natural Born Citizen” and “native born citizen.” are synonymous. I have never brought up someone becoming a naturalized citizen being eligible to become President.
 

American Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
253
Location
, ,
What point are you trying to make, because that part underlined has no relevance in this country. Lineage is irreverent in determining if a person is a “Natural Born Citizen" or being a “native born citizen.”

And again The Law of Nations plays no part in American law in determining citizenship of persons being born on American soil.

Why do you keep raising this issue, because you have offered no case law to support your position.

Let me point out the the concept of citizenship within a particular country is one governed not by international law or Law of Nations, but rather is governed by the internal law of each country.


THE LAW OF NATIONS

OR THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL LAW​
§ 212 The members of a civil society are its citizens. Bound to that society by certain duties and subject to its authority, they share equally in the advantages and it offers. Its natives are those who are born in the country of parents who are citizens. As the society can not maintain and perpetuate itself except by the children of its citizens, these children naturally take on the status of their fathers and enter upon all the latter's rights. The society is presumed to desire this as the necessary means of its self-preservation, and it is justly to be inferred that each citizen, upon entering into the society, reserves to his children the right to be members of it. The country of a father is therefore that of his children, and they become true citizens by their mere tacit consent. We shall see presently whether, when arrived at the age of reason, they may renounce their right and the duty they owe to the society in which they are born. I repeat that in order to belong to a country one must be born there of a father who is a citizen; for if one is born of foreign parents, that land will only be the place of one's birth, and not one's country.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,596
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
American Patriot, re-quoting that section with no explanation proves nothing.

You do know the founding fathers had little knowledge of Vattel’s "Law of Nations.", especially having anything to do with citizenship, don't you? Vattel’s "Law of Nations" was NOT translated into English until 1797; ten years after the Constitution, 1787.

The limited knowledge they had to "Law of Nations" was a nation’s duty to honor treaties as I pointed out above.

Again, you have offered nothing.
 

American Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
253
Location
, ,
If you look at both of your quotes I posted and bolded you will see why I reposted them.

What you offer is only your opinion without research. Of course they had copies of Vattel's THE LAW OF NATIONS supplied by Benjamin Franklin which he purchased and gave to them while they were in convention and he also kept a copy for himself and placed one in the nations library. What is so strange about French? Multitudes are bi-lingual. Many English speaking people are able to read and speak French as were many of the founders. Are you saying that Ole Ben Franklin et. al. could not communicate with their French lovers?

Apparently someone with the ability to read both English and French translated Vattel's work to English just a few years after the drafting of the US Constitution. Must have been important enough that they wanted the English speaking citizenry to understand why the requirement for the two executive offices required Natural Born Citizens. Not everyone who founded this nation were squirrel chasers and clod busters. Legal minds of the 1700s were respected and held in higher esteem than legal minds of today.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,793
Location
Granite State of Mind
Of course they had copies of Vattel's THE LAW OF NATIONS supplied by Benjamin Franklin which he purchased and gave to them while they were in convention and he also kept a copy for himself and placed one in the nations library.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc?

The Founders had access to many works, and considered many of them, both pro and con.

The existence of those documents in their libraries doesn't create a causal relationship to the end product.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,596
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
If you look at both of your quotes I posted and bolded you will see why I reposted them.

What you offer is only your opinion without research. Of course they had copies of Vattel's THE LAW OF NATIONS supplied by Benjamin Franklin which he purchased and gave to them while they were in convention and he also kept a copy for himself and placed one in the nations library. What is so strange about French? Multitudes are bi-lingual. Many English speaking people are able to read and speak French as were many of the founders. Are you saying that Ole Ben Franklin et. al. could not communicate with their French lovers?

Apparently someone with the ability to read both English and French translated Vattel's work to English just a few years after the drafting of the US Constitution. Must have been important enough that they wanted the English speaking citizenry to understand why the requirement for the two executive offices required Natural Born Citizens. Not everyone who founded this nation were squirrel chasers and clod busters. Legal minds of the 1700s were respected and held in higher esteem than legal minds of today.
Excuse me, you are the one that has offered nothing to support your position.

You cannot point to any reference of any of the framers published notes on the proceedings of the Federal Convention of 1787, because there are no reference or discussion contained in the notes in relation to citizenship at the Convention, or even in the Federalist Papers.

Your buddy cocked&locked relies on United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649 (1898). Wong relied on Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y. Leg. Obs. 236, 242, 244 (1 Sand. ch. 583) (1844).

One of the litigants in Lynch relied, in part, on Vattel, addressing specifically the question of the use of the term “natural born citizen” in the federal Constitution as one of the qualifications for President. The court responded with:
“The only standard which then existed, of natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of common law, in force when the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.”
You need to stop relying on cocked&locked. He is leading you down the Primrose Lane.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,596
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Well American Patriot, you have taken my breath away. You have actually drank the Kool-Aid. I can't compete with a debunked legal theory.

We will just have to sit back and watch cocked&locked file his lawsuit on January 21, 2021.
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
190
Location
PA
VATTEL’S CONCEPT OF “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” IN OUR CONSTITUTION – THE MARSHALL REPORT (wordpress.com)

VATTEL’S CONCEPT OF “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” IN OUR CONSTITUTION

february 17, 2016 the marshall report

In response to the article “Natural Born Citizen and Naturalized Citizen Explained Once And For All!

Written by Alan R. Treski, Esquire (FB Alan Treski)
To the Forum:

Once and for all, you can listen to the lawyers......OR YOU CAN LISTEN TO THE IDIOTS!

YOUR CHOICE!

CoL.... there are a couple of cigarette butts in my urinal. Take care of it!
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
190
Location
PA
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc?

The Founders had access to many works, and considered many of them, both pro and con.

The existence of those documents in their libraries doesn't create a causal relationship to the end product.
But the Patriot's last post does establish that relationship....... you dumb-ass liar.

The tampon dispenser needs re-stocking. Take care of that!
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,793
Location
Granite State of Mind
Of course, if anyone was still working as an admin, this would have been booted over to the Social Lounge on the first day.

(8) KEEP IT ON-TOPIC: All gun rights discussions not directly related to open carry should take place in the "General Discussions" forum and topics that are not related to gun rights at all should take place in "The Lounge". Please police your own posts before posting them and help keep OCDO strong and focused.
 

American Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
253
Location
, ,
Of course, if anyone was still working as an admin, this would have been booted over to the Social Lounge on the first day.

(8) KEEP IT ON-TOPIC: All gun rights discussions not directly related to open carry should take place in the "General Discussions" forum and topics that are not related to gun rights at all should take place in "The Lounge". Please police your own posts before posting them and help keep OCDO strong and focused.

How does anything in your post have to do with the topic?
"Kamala Does Not Qualify to be Vice President"
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,596
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Of course, if anyone was still working as an admin, this would have been booted over to the Social Lounge on the first day.

(8) KEEP IT ON-TOPIC: All gun rights discussions not directly related to open carry should take place in the "General Discussions" forum and topics that are not related to gun rights at all should take place in "The Lounge". Please police your own posts before posting them and help keep OCDO strong and focused.
KB, you have to understand that both "American Patriot" and "cocked&locked" have a major reading comprehension problem.

You also have to understand that "cocked&locked" plagiarized his original posting. The little pettifogger relied on other shyster attorneys.; none of which has ever filed a lawsuit, or ever will, promoting such a frivolous legal theory.

I actually feel sorry for "American Patriot" buying this garbage. This just proves that there's a sucker born every minute.
 
Top