BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen...

Full story: Chicago Tribune

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama 's U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama's ...

Comments (Page 4,652)

Showing posts 93,021 - 93,040 of167,711
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
LRS

Shreveport, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104504
Aug 31, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
You nmentioned dumpster twice. Running out of words?
Sorry,"nmentioned" is incorrectly spelled. Are you a complete dumbazz or only a partial dumbazz?
Ballantine

New York, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104505
Aug 31, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

American Lady wrote:
<quoted text>
THURSDAY, June 19, 1788.[1]
We are placed in a still better condition -- in a
more favorable situation than perhaps any people ever were before. We have it in our power to secure our liberties and happiness on the most unshaken, firm, and permanent basis. We can establish what government we please. But by that paper we are consolidating the United States into one great government, and trusting to constructive security. You will find no such thing in the English government.
>>>--->>> The common law of England is not the common
law of these states.<<<---<<
I conceive, therefore, that there is nothing in that Constitution to hinder a dismemberment of the empire.{509} Will any gentleman say that they may not make a treaty, whereby the
subjects of France, England, and other powers, may troy what lands they please in this country? This would violate those principles which we have received from the mother country. The indiscriminate admission of all foreigners to the first rights of citizenship, without any permanent security for their attachment to the country, is repugnant to every principle of prudence and good policy. The President and Senate can make any treaty whatsoever. We wish not to refuse, but to guard, this power, as it is done in England. The empire there cannot be dismembered without the consent of the national Parliament. We wish an express and explicit declaration, in that paper, that the power which can make other treaties cannot, without the consent of the national Parliament -- the national legislature -- dismember the empire. The Senate alone ought not to have this power; much less ought a few states to have it. No treaty to dismember the empire ought to be made without the consent of three fourths of the legislature in all its branches...
http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_16.txt
I suggest you read the entire debate. Mason and Henry were arguing that we didn't have our own common law at the national level. Virginia, however did adopt the English common law:

Reception statute of Virginia, 1776:

"And be it further ordained, That the common law of England, all statutes or acts of Parliament made in aid of the common law prior to the fourth year of the reign of King James the first, and which are of a general nature, not local to that kingdom, together with the several acts of the General Assembly of this colony now in force, so far as the same may consist with several ordinances, declarations, and resolutions of the General Convention, shall be the rule of decision, and shall be considered as in full force, until the same shall be altered by the legislative power of this colony."

Of course, you ignore the point that our Courts have consistently looked to define terms in the Constitution by the Common law irrespective of whether we adopted to common law as a matter of federal law. Have you found an undefined term in the Constitution yet that was not an English legal term? Bill of attender, habeas corpus, impeachment, high crimes and misdemeanors, due process, grand jury, indictment, presentment, cruel and unusual punishment and on and on are all terms from the English common law.
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104506
Aug 31, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry,"nmentioned" is incorrectly spelled. Are you a complete dumbazz or only a partial dumbazz?
Losers have no logic, no good arguments, they are ignorant, so they pounce on typos. And with me, as I make many, they have grade-school fun.

Some also think that Canada is in France.
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104507
Aug 31, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
It's no surprise. They hate Christians. Plain and simple. Oh, they'll tell us differently but we know better.
You, Rogue and American er hmm communist ladies are typical christians? WOW. Now, if any christians' faith was wavering, this is the coup de grâce. Mass resignation.
Ballantine

New York, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104508
Aug 31, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Titus is not a leading scholar, but say that he was. Then his opinion should be compared to these:
Or these:

Lawrence Tribe and Theodore Olson, 154 Cong. Rec. S3645-46 (Apr. 30, 2008)“[i]f the Panama Canal Zone was sovereign U.S. territory at the time of Senator McCain’s birth, then that fact alone would make him a “natural born” citizen under the well-established principle that “natural born” citizenship includes birth within the territory and allegiance of the United States”), Jack Maskill, Congressional Research Service Report, pg. 50 (2011)(“[t]he constitutional history, the nearly unanimous consensus of legal and constitutional scholars, and the consistent, relevant case law thus indicate that every child born in and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (that is, not children of diplomatic personnel representing a foreign nation or military troops in hostile occupation), is a native born U.S. citizen and thus a “natural born Citizen” eligible to be President…”), Black's Law Dictionary, Eighth edition (1999)( "Natural Born Citizenship Clause. The clause of the U.S. Constitution barring persons not born in the United States from the presidency"); James H. Kettner, THE DEVELOPMENT OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP, 1608-1870, pg. 287 (U.N.C. Press 1978)(“No one appeared to re-examine and justify Coke’s idea of the ‘natural-born citizen.’ Americans merely continued to assume that ‘birth within the allegiance’ conferred the status and its accompanied rights”); James C. Ho, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION, pg. 190 (2005)(“[u]nder the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President”); Lawrence Freedman, An Idea Whose Time Has Come--The Curious History, Uncertain Effect, and Need for Amendment of the "Natural Born Citizen" Requirement for the Presidency, 52 St. Louis U. L.J. 137, 143 (2007)("It is now generally assumed that the term "natural born" is synonymous with "native born"); Sarah Helene Duggin & Mary Beth Collins,'Natural Born' in the USA: The Striking Unfairness and Dangerous Ambiguity of the Constitution's Presidential Qualifications Clause and Why We Need to Fix It, 85 B.U. L. Rev. 53, 90-91 (2005)("United States citizens born to parents subject to United States jurisdiction in one of the fifty states are unquestionably natural born citizens… unless a child's parents are protected by the full immunity extended to foreign diplomats and their families, or they are enemy combatants"); Charles Gordon, Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 MD. L. R EV. 1 (1968)(“It is clear enough that native-born citizens are eligible and naturalized citizens are not”); Jill A.Pryor, The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty, 97 Yale L.J. 881, at 881 and n. 2 (1988)("Native-born citizens are natural born by virtue of the nearly universal principle of jus soli, or citizenship of place of birth"). Gabriel J. Chin, Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship”, 107 Mich. L. Rev.(2008)(“Those born in the United States are uncontroversially natural born citizens”); JM Medina, The Presidential Qualification Clause in This Bicentennial Year: The Need to Eliminate the Natural Born Citizen Requirement, Okla. City UL Rev., 1987 (“Prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment…[i]t was presumed that the English law of jus soli was incorporated into the law of the several former colonies and then into the Constitution”)

“WestieLover”

Since: Apr 12

The city that I reside

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104509
Aug 31, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

rollin wrote:
<quoted text>
Incorrect as usual. When will you paranoid loons put this to rest.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31773...
Regardless of what you believe on his birth narrative, go see the documentary, "2016 Obama's America. The future of our country depends on understanding who Obama really is and where he has yet to take us.
http://2016themovie.com/media/

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104510
Aug 31, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

1

Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Re: "July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later)- John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."
You talk a lot, but you really don't have much to say. You talk a lot about translation, but if you had actually studied history you would know that they had little trouble with translation and knew exactly what Vattel was saying.

"Les consuls et vice consuls respectifs ne pourront être pris que parmi les sujets naturels de la puissance qui les nommera. Tous seront appointés par leur souverain respectif, et ils ne pourront en conséquence faire aucun trafic ou commerce quelconque ni pour leur propre compte, ni pour le compte d'autrui."-- From the Journal of Congress 26 Jul 1781

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage ...:@field%28DATE+17810727%29: :%2 30210018&linkText=1

This is from Article 3 found on that page-- note the term "NATURELS"

This was translated by Charles Thomson secretary of the Continental Congress

"The respective Consuls and Vice Consuls shall only be taken from among the natural born subjects of the power nominating them. They shall all be appointed by their respective Sovereign, and in Consequence of such appointment they shall not exercise any traffic or commerce whatsoever either on their own account, or on account of any other."

Note how the term "NATURELS" is translated "NATURAL BORN"-- the founders were not confused, you are!!!

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage ...:@field%28DATE+17810727%29: :%2 30210030&linkText=1

The original french version of Vattel from 1758 States: "Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens."

Since we have proven that the founders translated "naturels" to "Natural Born" long before you claim- as proven above- we can thus translate this statement as the founders would have:

"The natural born or indigenous are those who are born in the country of Citizen Parents"

Seems pretty clear to me...

To be "natural born" as is required by the US Constitution- one must be "born of TWO Citizen parents"
LRS

Shreveport, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104512
Aug 31, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
You, Rogue and American er hmm communist ladies are typical christians? WOW. Now, if any christians' faith was wavering, this is the coup de grâce. Mass resignation.
Your first mistake; assuming because we are Christians we allow ourselves to walked on and bullied.

Your second mistake; assuming Americans would not tired of the likes of you and ilk.

Your third mistake; thinking you are somebody.

Your fourth mistake; sticking your nose where it simply doesn't belong. That's a good way to lose that nose!

dumbazzedcommiebastard!

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104513
Aug 31, 2012
 

Judged:

4

3

2

LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Your first mistake; assuming because we are Christians we allow ourselves to walked on and bullied.
Your second mistake; assuming Americans would not tired of the likes of you and ilk.
Your third mistake; thinking you are somebody.
Your fourth mistake; sticking your nose where it simply doesn't belong. That's a good way to lose that nose!
dumbazzedcommiebastard!
His fifth mistake: Spending ALL his time here day and night so people would know the truth that he and his "wife" don't have a sex life. And Jockstrap has NO life at all!
ballantine

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104514
Aug 31, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
You talk a lot, but you really don't have much to say. You talk a lot about translation, but if you had actually studied history you would know that they had little trouble with translation and knew exactly what Vattel was saying.
"Les consuls et vice consuls respectifs ne pourront être pris que parmi les sujets naturels de la puissance qui les nommera. Tous seront appointés par leur souverain respectif, et ils ne pourront en conséquence faire aucun trafic ou commerce quelconque ni pour leur propre compte, ni pour le compte d'autrui."-- From the Journal of Congress 26 Jul 1781
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage ...:@field%28DATE+17810727%29: :%2 30210018&linkText=1
This is from Article 3 found on that page-- note the term "NATURELS"
This was translated by Charles Thomson secretary of the Continental Congress
"The respective Consuls and Vice Consuls shall only be taken from among the natural born subjects of the power nominating them. They shall all be appointed by their respective Sovereign, and in Consequence of such appointment they shall not exercise any traffic or commerce whatsoever either on their own account, or on account of any other."
Note how the term "NATURELS" is translated "NATURAL BORN"-- the founders were not confused, you are!!!
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage ...:@field%28DATE+17810727%29: :%2 30210030&linkText=1
The original french version of Vattel from 1758 States: "Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens."
Since we have proven that the founders translated "naturels" to "Natural Born" long before you claim- as proven above- we can thus translate this statement as the founders would have:
"The natural born or indigenous are those who are born in the country of Citizen Parents"
Seems pretty clear to me...
To be "natural born" as is required by the US Constitution- one must be "born of TWO Citizen parents"
You seem to have a reasoning problem. The fact one person translated "sujets naturels" to "natural born subject" doesn't mean anyone else would translate "naturels" to "natural born citizen.". "Natural subject" and "natural born subject" were exchangable terms as even calvin's case shows. Now show us an Englsih-French dictionary from the time that supports you. They don't exist. The facts are you have no evidence that any framer was interpreting the french version or that any interpreted it as you suggest. Speculation is not legal argument.
American Lady

Danville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104515
Aug 31, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

1

Ballantine wrote:
<quoted text>
Or these:
Lawrence Tribe and Theodore Olson, 154 Cong. Rec. S3645-46 (Apr. 30, 2008)“[i]f the Panama Canal Zone was sovereign U.S. territory at the time of Senator McCain’s birth, then that fact alone would make him a “natural born” citizen under the well-established principle that “natural born” citizenship includes birth within the territory and allegiance of the United States”), Jack Maskill, Congressional Research Service Report, pg. 50 (2011)(“[t]he constitutional history, the nearly unanimous consensus of legal and constitutional scholars, and the consistent, relevant case law thus indicate that every child born in and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (that is, not children of diplomatic personnel representing a foreign nation or military troops in hostile occupation), is a native born U.S. citizen and thus a “natural born Citizen” eligible to be President…”), Black's Law Dictionary, Eighth edition (1999)( "Natural Born Citizenship Clause. The clause of the U.S. Constitution barring persons not born in the United States from the presidency"); James H. Kettner, THE DEVELOPMENT OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP, 1608-1870, pg. 287 (U.N.C. Press 1978)(“No one appeared to re-examine and justify Coke’s idea of the ‘natural-born citizen.’ Americans merely continued to assume that ‘birth within the allegiance’ conferred the status and its accompanied rights”); James C. Ho, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION, pg. 190 (2005)(“[u]nder the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President”); Lawrence Freedman, An Idea Whose Time Has Come--The Curious History, Uncertain Effect, and Need for Amendment of the "Natural Born Citizen" Requirement for the Presidency, 52 St. Louis U. L.J. 137, 143 (2007)("It is now generally assumed that the term "natural born" is synonymous with "native born"); Sarah Helene Duggin & Mary Beth Collins,'Natural Born' in the USA: The Striking Unfairness and Dangerous Ambiguity of the Constitution's Presidential Qualifications Clause and Why We Need to Fix It, 85 B.U. L. Rev. 53, 90-91 (2005)...
In 1963, one year after graduating from Harvard College, Tribe enrolled in Harvard Law School. Less than a decade later, he had earned tenure at the school, where he would go on to teach future President Barack Obama, Chief Justice John G. Roberts ’76, Justice Elena Kagan, and Congressman Barney Frank ’61-’62.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/5/21/l...

Things get more "clear" ...
The farther I "dig" ...

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104516
Aug 31, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

2

ballantine wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to have a reasoning problem. The fact one person translated "sujets naturels" to "natural born subject" doesn't mean anyone else would translate "naturels" to "natural born citizen.". "Natural subject" and "natural born subject" were exchangable terms as even calvin's case shows. Now show us an Englsih-French dictionary from the time that supports you. They don't exist. The facts are you have no evidence that any framer was interpreting the french version or that any interpreted it as you suggest. Speculation is not legal argument.
"One Person"?? He was the Secretary of the Continental Congress.

Your denial is very telling.
ballantine

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104517
Aug 31, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

American Lady wrote:
<quoted text>
In 1963, one year after graduating from Harvard College, Tribe enrolled in Harvard Law School. Less than a decade later, he had earned tenure at the school, where he would go on to teach future President Barack Obama, Chief Justice John G. Roberts ’76, Justice Elena Kagan, and Congressman Barney Frank ’61-’62.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/5/21/l...
Things get more "clear" ...
The farther I "dig" ...
Oh, it's a huge conspiracy. And Ted Olson is in on it as well as is the entire Senate as their opinion was entered into the congressional record without dissent. And all the other scholars are also in on it as well as the dozen or so courts that have rejected the two-parent nonsense. We know, everyone is wrong and you are right. LOL.
American Lady

Danville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104518
Aug 31, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

ballantine wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, it's a huge conspiracy. And Ted Olson is in on it as well as is the entire Senate as their opinion was entered into the congressional record without dissent. And all the other scholars are also in on it as well as the dozen or so courts that have rejected the two-parent nonsense. We know, everyone is wrong and you are right. LOL.
Hey bub...
When the TRUTH is "laid out" in front of you...
IT is NO longer a "conspiracy" ...
IT IS FACTS!
American Lady

Danville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104519
Aug 31, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

ballantine wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to have a reasoning problem. The fact one person translated "sujets naturels" to "natural born subject" doesn't mean anyone else would translate "naturels" to "natural born citizen.". "Natural subject" and "natural born subject" were exchangable terms as even calvin's case shows. Now show us an Englsih-French dictionary from the time that supports you. They don't exist. The facts are you have no evidence that any framer was interpreting the french version or that any interpreted it as you suggest. Speculation is not legal argument.
Among his many accomplishments as Secretary, Thomson designed the Great Seal of the United States. The United States of America continues to use the Great Seal on all of its official documents, and anyone can easily locate the Great Seal on the reverse side of the one dollar bill.

Charles Thomson traveled to Mt Vernon in April, 1789, to inform George Washington that Washington had just been elected first President of the United States under the new Constitution. By July, Thomson was retired from Congress, having submitted his resignation to President Washington and having turned over the Great Seal of the United States to him.

http://www.harritonhouse.org/history.htm
LRS

Shreveport, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104520
Aug 31, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

ballantine wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to have a reasoning problem. The fact one person translated "sujets naturels" to "natural born subject" doesn't mean anyone else would translate "naturels" to "natural born citizen.". "Natural subject" and "natural born subject" were exchangable terms as even calvin's case shows. Now show us an Englsih-French dictionary from the time that supports you. They don't exist. The facts are you have no evidence that any framer was interpreting the french version or that any interpreted it as you suggest. Speculation is not legal argument.
No, he nailed it.
American Lady

Danville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104521
Aug 31, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Final Design of the Great Seal – June 20, 1782

On June 13, 1782, Congress asked Charles Thomson to come up with a suitable design for America's Great Seal. With the reports and drawings of the three committees before him, he set to work.

Fifty-three at the time, Thomson had served the past eight years as Secretary of the Continental Congress where he acquired a reputation for fairness, truth, and integrity. Well-versed in the classics, he was once a Latin master at an academy in Philadelphia.

Although today he is not a well-known founder, Charles Thomson was at the heart of the American Revolution. His story is a fascinating one.

Thomson incorporated symbolic elements from all three committees with ideas of his own to create a bold and elegant design. He made a sketch and wrote a description of his preliminary design.

http://greatseal.com/committees/finaldesign/i...
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104522
Aug 31, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
You talk a lot, but you really don't have much to say. You talk a lot about translation, but if you had actually studied history you would know that they had little trouble with translation and knew exactly what Vattel was saying.
"Les consuls et vice consuls respectifs ne pourront être pris que parmi les sujets naturels de la puissance qui les nommera. Tous seront appointés par leur souverain respectif, et ils ne pourront en conséquence faire aucun trafic ou commerce quelconque ni pour leur propre compte, ni pour le compte d'autrui."-- From the Journal of Congress 26 Jul 1781...
Answer: "Vattel wrote this:

“Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.”

He did not write:“"Les consuls et vice consuls respectifs ne pourront être pris que parmi les sujets naturels de la puissance qui les nommera. Tous seront appointés par leur souverain respectif, et ils ne pourront en conséquence faire aucun trafic ou commerce quelconque ni pour leur propre compte, ni pour le compte d'autrui."-- From the Journal of Congress 26 Jul 1781

Vattel did not write “les sujets naturels.” IF Vattel had written “les sujets naturels,” it would be easy to translated it as Natural Born Subjects. But he didn’t.

He wrote:““Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.”

That has been translated as “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

Clearly the Naturels is being translated as Natives. But the translation of “indigenes” as Natural Born Citizens is iffy.

You said: "we have proven that the founders translated "naturels" to "Natural Born" long..."

Answer: Yes you did. But, in the Vattel translation, the "naturels" is being used for the word natives. It is the "indigenes" that has to be translated, as you say, Natural Born Citizens. But the translator before the writing of the US Constitution did not do so, he left the word "indigenes"---perhap s because he was not sure how to translate it.

There is certainly no evidence that all or even most of the writers of the Constitution read French. So the ones that didn’t had to read the translation at the time, which did NOT use the phrase Natural Born Citizen. It said:

“The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”

The evidence that the writers of the Constitution took Natural Born Citizen from indigenes is slim.

The evidence that John Jay meant Vattel’s indignes when he wrote “Natural Born Citizen” to Washington is non existent, and it would certainly have been a stretch for him to believe that when he wrote Natural Born Citizen, George Washington would think “Vattel’s indigenes, of course.” And, since Jay could not assume that Washington would think “Vattel’s indigenes, of course”--- Jay wouldn't have said Natural Born and meant Vattel. If he had meant Vattel, he would have said Vattel.

So what did Jay really mean? He must have meant the most common of the uses of Natural Born. The one that had been used for hundreds of years, the common law meaning.(The one that he was most familiar with as a lawyer and justice too.)

If Jay had meant the Vattel meaning. If the writers of the Constitution had meant the Vattel meaning, THEY WOULD HAVE TOLD US.

Instead, Vattel is not even mentioned at all in the Federalist Papers, while the common law is mentioned about twenty times, and just a few years after the Constitution went into effect, scholars such as Tucker and Rawle were using the term JUST THE WAY THAT IT WAS USED IN THE COMMON LAW.

It is nice to know that there was a secretary at the Constitutional Convention who spoke French. But it is a considerable stretch to think that he translated indignes for all the delegates and told them that it was “Natural Born Citizen.” And, if he had, and if they used it, they would have told us that they were using Vattel.
ballantine

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104523
Aug 31, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
"One Person"?? He was the Secretary of the Continental Congress.
Your denial is very telling.
And why would that mean any framer would make the same interpretaion as him rather than what is in any english-french dictionary? And he was interpreting "sujets naturels" not just "naturels" which was in Vattel. Obviously, "sujets naturels" translated into "natural subject" which meant the same thing as "natural born subject" in England. See calvin's case if you don't know that. He wasn't translating simply the term "naturels" that appears in Vattel and you cannot cite a single authority translatng "naturels" into "natural born citizen" and even if you could, you have no evidense a single framer made such interpretation. If you can't understand this, there is something wrong with you.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104524
Aug 31, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Has anyone heard from Colon Powell lately? Four years ago he endorsed Obama but he has been silent on Obama this time. But he did say this about Mitt after Obama criticized him!

Colin Powell Gives Romney Good Grades: Overseas Trip 'Demonstrated He Can Participate In Foreign Relations'
By Noel Sheppard | August 10, 2012

As NewsBusters has been reporting, the Obama-loving media spent many days in recent weeks trashing presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney for alleged gaffes he made during his overseas trip to Europe and Israel.

Rather surprisingly, in an interview to be aired on CNN's Fareed Zakaria GPS Sunday, Obama-supporter and former Secretary of State Colin Powell gave Romney good grades for his trip saying, "He demonstrated that he can participate in foreign relations in a way that is constructive...I think he did himself good by going to these countries" (video follows with transcript and commentary):

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/20...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 93,021 - 93,040 of167,711
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••