The Second amendment

[JimC]

The key point which shows that the whole thing about Obama is nonsense is simply that there has been no formal legal challenge on these grounds by anyone against his right to be president. If there was even a remote chance of such a move succeeding, then his frenzied opposition would have done so long ago. The Tea Party are "all sound and fury, signifying nothing"...

[Tero]

[Seth]

Since the King no longer has any power, what use is any of this wording to us today? There is no Somali prince converting us to Islam.

It's about as antiquated as the militias of the 2nd. We pay our national guardcto bear those arms.

Your opinion doesn't rule. Much of the English common law was adopted into US law at the founding of the United States and is therefore valid precedent, particularly when it comes to discerning "original intent" of the Founders, which is what controls the interpretation of terms in the Constitution.

The only way to change this is to amend the Constitution, which in this case has not been done.

The whole point of original intent jurisprudence is to provide a solid, stable framework of law and constitutional constraints that does NOT change with the whims and caprices of any contemporary society, which is a danger that the Founders clearly recognized when they drafted the Constitution, and that's precisely why it is so difficult and time consuming to amend it.

It doesn't matter what you want or what you think about our Constitution or its applicability to today's culture or mores, all that matters is what the Founders thought and what the voters ratified. If you think the 2nd Amendment is antiquated, then you may attempt to amend it...if you're a citizen of the United States. That's the right of every citizen, natural born or not. Good luck with that, because even if you do amend the 2nd Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms survives anything you succeed in doing because that right is not granted by the 2nd Amendment, it pre-exists and exists entirely independent of both the 2nd Amendment and indeed the Constitution itself, and it even supersedes government itself and therefore can never be "repealed."

But until they succeed the 2nd Amendment protects the right of each and every individual citizen to keep and bear arms for BOTH personal defense AND military duty, so sayeth the United States Supreme Court in affirming the nature of the right protected by the 2nd Amendment, a right which has always existed and has been exactly the same as it was when the Founders chose to prohibit government from infringing upon it.

[Seth]

it's been a well-known fact since the 17th century at least, so I'm not interested in educating you when you can go to Wikipedia and look it up yourself.

That's your bald assertion. The Wikipedia contains an article on the natural-born-citizen clause, but does not mention anything about a requirement that both parents be citizens, in order to be president. In fact, the article specificall states:

The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. The consensus of early 21st-century constitutional and legal scholarship, together with relevant case law, is that "natural born" comprises all people born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, including, generally, those born in the United States, those born to U.S. citizen parents in foreign countries, and those born in other situations meeting the legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth."

So much for "a well known fact."

See how easy that was? Now, the only problem you have is the "consensus of early 21st century constitutional and legal scholarship." You see, what the 21st century Progressives and their ilk agree upon is not relevant to what the original intent of the Framers was when the clause was written, it's nothing more than political revisionism.

And then you finally provide your first link to what someone wrote on the subject. What is it? Oh look. It's a 21st century opinion. Well done, Seth. That is the very thing you just said to be irrelevant.

Now to what you call "the prime authority", Vattel's Law of Nations. That book is almost 1000 pages long. One sentence in it says "it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country." If that is your prime authority, you stand on extremely flimsy ground in regard to it being "a well-known fact since the 17th century at least", and especially so since Vattel also writes that the homeless are not entitled to citizenship. Do you think that is something the authors of your constitution also intended the natural born citizen clause to mean, but left unsaid because "it's been a well-known fact since the 17th century at least"? Or are you just picking and choosing from the books of a Swiss philosopher whatever suits your interpretation of the clause and reject what does not?

How mendacious of you. Vattel wrote an entire chapter on the subject:

CHAPTER XIX: Of our Native Country, and several Things that relate to it.↩

✪

§211. What is our country.The whole of the countries possessed by a nation and subject to its laws, forms, as we have already said, its territory, and is the common country of all the individuals of the nation. We have been obliged to anticipate the definition of the term, native country (§122), because our subject led us to treat of the love of our country,—a virtue so excellent and so necessary in a state. Supposing then this definition already known, it remains that we should explain several things that have a relation to this subject, and answer the questions that naturally arise from it.

§212. Citizens and natives.The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to [218] all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. [102]

Note: Barack Obama's father was a Kenyan and UK citizen and was never a US citizen.

§213. Inhabitants.The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the society by their residence, they are subject to the laws of the state, while they reside in it; and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society, without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow the condition of their fathers; and as the state has given to these the right of perpetual residence, their right passes to their posterity.

§214. Naturalisation.A nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society. This is called naturalisation. There are some states in which the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens,—for example, that of holding public offices,—and where, consequently, he has the power of granting only an imperfect naturalisation.

Note: That is exactly what the Framers contemplated for those not born of two US citizen parents and that is what they put in the Constitution with respect to the office of President.

It is here a regulation of the fundamental law, which limits the power of the prince. In other states, as in England and Poland, the prince cannot naturalise a single person, without the concurrence of the nation represented by its deputies. Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalises the children of a foreigner.
[219]

§215. Children of citizens, born in a foreign country.It is asked, whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot of itself furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say “of itself,” for civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.

§216. Children born at sea.As to children born at sea, if they are born in those parts of it that are possessed by their nation, they are born in the country: if it is on the open sea, there is no reason to make a distinction between them and those who are born in the country; for, naturally, it is our extraction, not the place of our birth, that gives us rights: and if the children are born in a vessel belonging to the nation, they may be reputed born in its territories; for it is natural to consider the vessels of a nation as parts of its territory, especially when they sail upon a free sea, since the state retains its jurisdiction over those vessels. And as, according to the commonly received custom, this jurisdiction is [103] preserved over the vessels, even in parts of the sea subject to a foreign dominion, all the children born in the vessels of a nation are considered as born in its territory. For the same reason, those born in a foreign vessel are reputed born in a foreign country, unless their birth took place in a port belonging to their own nation: for the port is more particularly a part of the territory; and the mother, though at that moment on board a foreign vessel, is not on that account out of the country. I suppose that she and her husband have not quitted their native country to settle elsewhere.

§217. Children born in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court.For the same reasons also, children born out of the country in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen, who is absent with his family on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.
[220]

§218. Settlement.Settlement is a fixed residence in any place with an intention of always staying there. A man does not then establish his settlement in any place, unless he makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly, or by an express declaration. However, this declaration is no reason why, if he afterwards changes his mind, he may not transfer his settlement elsewhere. In this sense, a person who stops at a place upon business, even though he stay a long time, has only a simple habitation there, but has no settlement. Thus the envoy of a foreign prince has not his settlement at the court where he resides.

The natural or original settlement is that which we acquire by birth, in the place where our father has his; and we are considered as retaining it, till we have abandoned it, in order to chuse another. The acquired settlement (adscititium) is that where we settle by our own choice.

§219. Vagrants.Vagrants are people who have no settlement. Consequently those born of vagrant parents have no country, since a man’s country is the place where, at the time of his birth, his parents had their settlement (§122), or it is the state of which his father was then a member;—which comes to the same point: for to settle for ever in a nation, is to become a member of it, at least as a perpetual inhabitant, if not with all the privileges of a citizen. We may, however, consider the country of a vagrant to be that of his child, while that vagrant is considered as not having absolutely renounced his natural or original settlement.

§220. Whether a person may quit his country.Many distinctions will be necessary in order to give a complete solution to the celebrated question, whether a man may quit his country or the society of which he is a member. 1. The children are bound by natural ties to the society in which they were born: they are under an obligation to shew themselves grateful for the protection it has afforded to their fathers, and are in a great measure indebted to it for their birth and education. They ought therefore to love it, as we have already shewn (§122),—to express a just gratitude to it, and requite its services as far as possible by serving it in turn. We have observed above (§212), that they have a right to enter [104] into the society of which their fathers were members. But every man is born free; and the son of a citizen, when come to the years of discretion, may examine whether it be convenient for him to join the society for which he was destined by his birth. If he [221] does not find it advantageous to remain in it, he is at liberty to quit it on making it a compensation for what it has done in his favour,* and preserving, as far as his new engagements will allow him, the sentiments of love and gratitude he owes it. A man’s obligations to his natural country may, however, change, lessen, or entirely vanish, according as he shall have quitted it lawfully, and with good reason, in order to choose another, or has been banished from it deservedly or unjustly, in due form of law, or by violence.

2. As soon as the son of a citizen attains the age of manhood, and acts as a citizen, he tacitly assumes that character; his obligations, like those of others who expressly and formally enter into engagements with society, become stronger and more extensive: but the case is very different with respect to him of whom we have been speaking. When a society has not been formed for a determinate time, it is allowable to quit it, when that separation can take place without detriment to the society. A citizen may therefore quit the state of which he is a member, provided it be not in such a conjuncture when he cannot abandon it without doing it a visible injury. But we must here draw a distinction between what may in strict justice be done, and what is honourable and conformable to every duty,—in a word, between the internal and the external obligation. Every man has a right to quit his country, in order to settle in any other, when by that step he does not endanger the welfare of his country. But a good citizen will never determine on such a step without necessity, or without very strong reasons. It is taking a dishonourable advantage of our liberty, to quit our associates upon slight pretences, after having derived considerable advantages from them: and this is the case of every citizen with respect to his country.

3. As to those who have the cowardice to abandon their country in a time of danger, and seek to secure themselves instead of defending it,— they manifestly violate the social compact, by which all the contracting parties engaged to defend themselves in an united body, and in concert: [222] they are infamous deserters whom the state has a right to punish severely.* [105]

§221. How a person may absent himself for a time.In a time of peace and tranquillity, when the country has no actual need of all her children, the very welfare of the state, and that of the citizens, requires that every individual be at liberty to travel on business, provided that he be always ready to return, whenever the public interest recalls him. It is not presumed that any man has bound himself to the society of which he is a member, by an engagement never to leave the country when the interest of his affairs requires it, and when he can absent himself without injury to his country.

§222. Variation of the political laws in this respect.The political laws of nations vary greatly in this respect. In some nations, it is at all times, except in case of actual war, allowed to every citizen to absent himself, and even to quit the country altogether, whenever he thinks proper, without alleging any reason for it. These must be obeyed.This liberty, contrary in its own nature to the welfare and safety of society, can no where be tolerated but in a country destitute of resources and incapable of supplying the wants of its inhabitants. In such a country there can only be an imperfect society; for civil society ought to be capable of enabling all its members to procure by their labour and industry all the necessaries of life:—unless it effects this, it has no right to require them to devote themselves entirely to it. In some other states, every citizen is left at liberty to travel abroad on business, but not to quit his country altogether, without the express permission of the sovereign. Finally, there are states where the rigour of the government will not permit any one whatsoever to go out of the country, without passports in form, which are even not [223] granted without great difficulty. In all these cases it is necessary to conform to the laws, when they are made by a lawful authority. But in the last-mentioned case, the sovereign abuses his power, and reduces his subjects to an insupportable slavery, if he refuses them permission to travel for their own advantage, when he might grant it to them without inconvenience, and without danger to the state. Nay it will presently appear, that, on certain occasions, he cannot, under any pretext, detain persons who wish to quit the country with the intention of abandoning it for ever.

§223. Cases in which a citizen has a right to quit his country.There are cases in which a citizen has an absolute right to renounce his country, and abandon it entirely,—a right, founded on reasons derived from the very nature of the social compact.—1. If the citizen cannot procure subsistence in his own country, it is undoubtedly lawful for him to seek it elsewhere. For political or civil society being entered into only with a view of facilitating to each of its members the means of supporting himself, and of living in happiness and safety, it would be absurd to pretend that a member, whom it cannot furnish with such things as are most necessary, has not a right to leave it.

2. If the body of the society, or he who represents it, absolutely fail to discharge their obligations towards a citizen, the latter may withdraw himself. For if one of the contracting parties does not observe his engagements, the other is no longer bound to fulfil his; for the contract is reciprocal between the society and [106] its members. It is on the same principle also that the society may expel a member who violates its laws.

3. If the major part of the nation, or the sovereign who represents it, attempt to enact laws relative to matters in which the social compact cannot oblige every citizen to submission, those who are averse to these laws have a right to quit the society, and go settle elsewhere. For instance, if the sovereign, or the greater part of the nation, will allow but one religion in the state, those who believe and profess another religion have a right to withdraw, and to take with them their families and effects. For they cannot be supposed to have subjected themselves to the authority of men, in affairs of conscience;* and if the society suffers and is weakened [224] by their departure, the blame must be imputed to the intolerant party: for it is they who fail in their observance of the social compact,— it is they who violate it, and force the others to a separation. We have elsewhere touched upon some other instances of this third case,—that of a popular state wishing to have a sovereign (§33),—and that of an independent nation taking the resolution to submit to a foreign power (§195).

§224. Emigrants.Those who quit their country for any lawful reason, with a design to settle elsewhere, are called emigrants, and take their families and property with them.

§225. Sources of their right.Their right to emigrate may arise from several sources. 1. In the cases we have just mentioned (§223), it is a natural right, which is certainly reserved to each individual in the very compact itself by which civil society was formed.

2. The liberty of emigration may, in certain cases, be secured to the citizens by a fundamental law of the state. The citizens of Neufchatel and Valangin in Switzerland may quit the country and carry off their effects at their own pleasure, without even paying any duties.

3. It may be voluntarily granted them by the sovereign.

4. Finally, this right may be derived from some treaty made with a foreign power, by which a sovereign has promised to leave full liberty to those of his subjects, who, for a certain reason, on account of religion for instance, desire to transplant themselves into the territories of that power. There are such treaties between the German princes, particularly for cases in which religion is concerned. In Switzerland likewise, a citizen of Bern who wishes to emigrate to Fribourg and there profess the religion of the place, and reciprocally a citizen of Fribourg who, for a similar reason, is desirous of removing to Bern, has a right to quit his native country, and carry off with him all his property.

It appears from several passages in history, particularly the history of Switzerland and the neighbouring countries, that the law of nations, established there by custom some ages back, did not permit a state to receive the subjects of another state into the number of its citizens. This vicious custom had no other [107] foundation than the slavery to which the people were then reduced. A prince, a lord, ranked his subjects under [225] the head of his private property: he calculated their number, as he did that of his flocks; and, to the disgrace of human nature, this strange abuse is not yet every where eradicated.

§226. If the sovereign infringes their right, he injures them.If the sovereign attempts to molest those who have a right to emigrate, he does them an injury; and the injured individuals may lawfully implore the protection of the power who is willing to receive them. Thus we have seen Frederic William,75 king of Prussia, grant his protection to the emigrant protestants of Saltzburgh.

§227. Supplicants.The name of supplicants is given to all fugitives who implore the protection of a sovereign against the nation or prince they have quitted. We cannot solidly establish what the law of nations determines with respect to them, until we have treated of the duties of one nation towards others.

§228. Exile and banishment.Finally, exile is another manner of leaving our country. An exile is a man driven from the place of his settlement, or constrained to quit it, but without a mark of infamy. Banishment is a similar expulsion, with a mark of infamy annexed.* Both may be for a limited time, or for ever. If an exile or banished man had his settlement in his own country, he is exiled or banished from his country. It is however proper to observe that common usage applies also the terms, exile and banishment, to the expulsion of a foreigner who is driven from a country where he had no settlement, and to which he is, either for a limited time or for ever, prohibited to return.

As a man may be deprived of any right whatsoever by way of punishment,—exile, which deprives him of the right of dwelling in a certain place, may be inflicted as a punishment: banishment is always one; for a mark of infamy cannot be set on any one, but with the view of punishing him for a fault, either real or pretended.
[226]

When the society has excluded one of its members by a perpetual banishment, he is only banished from the lands of that society, and it cannot hinder him from living wherever else he pleases; for, after having driven him out, it can no longer claim any authority over him. The contrary, however, may take place by particular conventions between two or more states. Thus every member of the Helvetic confederacy may banish its own subjects out of the territories of Switzerland in general; and in this case the banished person will not be allowed to live in any of the cantons, or in the territories of their allies.

Exile is divided into voluntary and involuntary. It is voluntary, when a man quits his settlement, to escape some punish-[108]ment, or to avoid some calamity,—and involuntary, when it is the effect of a superior order.

Sometimes a particular place is appointed, where the exiled person is to remain during his exile; or a certain space is particularised, which he is forbid to enter. These various circumstances and modifications depend on him who has the power of sending into exile.

§229. The exile and banished man have a right to live somewhere.A man, by being exiled or banished, does not forfeit the human character, nor consequently his right to dwell somewhere on earth. He derives this right from nature, or rather from its author, who has destined the earth for the habitation of mankind; and the introduction of property cannot have impaired the right which every man has to the use of such things as are absolutely necessary,—a right which he brings with him into the world at the moment of his birth.

§230. Nature of this right.But though this right is necessary and perfect in the general view of it, we must not forget that it is but imperfect with respect to each particular country. For, on the other hand, every nation has a right to refuse admitting a foreigner into her territory, when he cannot enter it without exposing the nation to evident danger, or doing her a manifest injury. What she owes to herself, the care of her own safety, gives her this right; and in virtue of her natural liberty, it belongs to the nation to judge, whether her circumstances will or will not justify the admission of that foreigner (Prelim. §16). He cannot then settle by a full right, and as he pleases, in the place he has chosen, but must ask permission of the chief of the place; and if it is refused, it is his duty to submit.
[227]

§231. Duty of nations towards them.However, as property could not be introduced to the prejudice of the right acquired by every human creature, of not being absolutely deprived of such things as are necessary,—no nation can, without good reasons, refuse even a perpetual residence to a man driven from his country. But if particular and substantial reasons prevent her from affording him an asylum, this man has no longer any right to demand it,—because, in such a case, the country inhabited by the nation cannot, at the same time, serve for her own use, and that of this foreigner. Now, supposing even that things are still in common, nobody can arrogate to himself the use of a thing which actually serves to supply the wants of another. Thus a nation, whose lands are scarcely sufficient to supply the wants of the citizens, is not obliged to receive into its territories a company of fugitives or exiles. Thus it ought even absolutely to reject them, if they are infected with a contagious disease. Thus also it has a right to send them elsewhere, if it has just cause to fear that they will corrupt the manners of the citizens, that they will create religious disturbances, or occasion any other disorder, contrary to the public safety. In a word, it has a right, and is even obliged, to follow, in this respect, the suggestions of prudence. But this prudence should be free from unnecessary suspicion and jealousy;—it should not be carried so far as to [109] refuse a retreat to the unfortunate, for slight reasons, and on groundless and frivolous fears. The means of tempering it will be never to lose sight of that charity and commiseration which are due to the unhappy. We must not suppress those feelings even for those who have fallen into misfortune through their own fault. For we ought to hate the crime, but love the man, since all mankind ought to love each other.

§232. A nation cannot punish them for faults committed out of its territories,If an exile or banished man has been driven from his country for any crime, it does not belong to the nation in which he has taken refuge, to punish him for that fault committed in a foreign country. For nature does not give to men or to nations any right to inflict punishment, except for their own defence and safety (§169); whence it follows, that we cannot punish any but those by whom we have been injured.

§233. except such as affect the common safety of mankind.But this very reason shews, that, although the justice of each nation ought in general to be confined to the punishment of crimes committed in its own territories, we ought to except from this rule those villains, [228] who, by the nature and habitual frequency of their crimes, violate all public security, and declare themselves the enemies of the human race. Poisoners, assassins, and incendiaries by profession, may be exterminated wherever they are seized; for they attack and injure all nations, by trampling under foot the foundations of their common safety. Thus pirates are sent to the gibbet by the first into whose hands they fall. If the sovereign of the country where crimes of that nature have been committed, reclaims the perpetrators of them in order to bring them to punishment, they ought to be surrendered to him, as being the person who is principally interested in punishing them in an exemplary manner. And as it is proper to have criminals regularly convicted by a trial in due form of law, this is a second reason for delivering up malefactors of that class to the states where their crimes have been committed.

Moreover, times do change, Seth, and sometimes for the good. Before your civil war there were four million slaves who had no citizenship rights whatsoever. They were considered property to be owned, bought and sold exactly like cattle or land. Until less than a century ago half the adult population was not a part of "we, the people" as far as even sometheng as basic as voting rights are concerned either. Interpretations of what your constitution "really means" change all the time, yet here you are pretending that they never do while asserting a meaning that was never expressed in the first place.

Guess how slavery was abolished and former slaves given the right to vote: Was it by Lincoln during the Emancipation Declaration?

Nope. Lincoln made a pretty speech that had absolutely no legal force whatsoever. The abolition of slavery was the product of the 14th Amendment, duly ratified and adopted into the Constitution by the several states according to the process set forth for doing so in the Constitution itself, and by no other means whatsoever.

Times may change but the meaning of the Constitution does NOT change unless and until it is explicitly revised through the process of constitutional amendment.

And that's exactly what the Supreme Court said in Marbury v. Madison (while at the same time unconstitutionally arrogating to itself judicial authority to rule on the constitutionality of the laws of Congress).

The Constitution may indeed be considered a "living" document, but it's not a cancer on society that can metastasize into something it was not intended to be, it's a foundation of law and constraint on government actions that can ONLY be changed by specific amendment, not by the gradual morphing of the use and understanding of words and phrases included therein. It is the original intent and understandings of the Framers that rules in ALL cases unless and until that language and understanding is explicitly revised by the laborious process of constitutional amendment.

And neither the 2nd Amendment nor Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution have been so amended, so the original intent remains intact and with the full force of law.

[Seth]

The key point which shows that the whole thing about Obama is nonsense is simply that there has been no formal legal challenge on these grounds by anyone against his right to be president. If there was even a remote chance of such a move succeeding, then his frenzied opposition would have done so long ago. The Tea Party are "all sound and fury, signifying nothing"...

That no such suit has been adjudicated to completion doesn't change the law or the Constitution. The Supreme Court did not rule on the matter, it simply refused to grant certiorari, which legally speaking cannot be read as a ruling against the plaintiffs. It did so for political reasons and not judicial ones.'

Seventeen lawsuits have been filed and all have been dismissed by the courts without a full hearing, mostly based on the idea that no citizen has "standing" to bring a case against a sitting president because any injury would be too "indirect." This is quite obviously a standard set precisely in order to frustrate all attempts to bring the facts out and have (eventually) the Supreme Court rule on the issue directly.

In a number of cases involving military officers and soldiers who contested duty assignments based on Obama's usurped position as Commander in Chief, rather than allow the cases to go forward, the military, at Obama's command, simply revoked the deployment orders saying that the soldier's were "no longer needed" in the field, thus causing their cases to be dismissed as moot. It's perfectly clear that this tactic was meant to prevent the process of discovery that would have required Obama to release his birth records, something he has spent two million dollars trying to avoid. If Obama is qualified to be President, then he should simply release all his birth records, along with records of his mother's renunciation of her US citizenship while living (with Barack) in Indonesia, during which she ALSO renounced her minor child's (Barack's) citizenship.

If individual citizens are not "injured" by a usurper who is not qualified to hold the office of President of the United States then I don't know what would "injure" them. Obama has "injured" every single citizen of the United States with his treasonous actions many times over.

That the courts refuse to allow a trial points to the corruption of the judicial and political systems, not any sort of proof that Obama is legally qualified to hold the office.

[Hermit]

Fine. So it's three sentences, one of which I did quote, in a work spanning 896 pages. What makes you think the authors fixed on those?

[Seth]

Fine. So it's three sentences, one of which I did quote, in a work spanning 896 pages. What makes you think the authors fixed on those?

History and their own words of course. Vattel didn't make this stuff up, he was citing the well-known laws of nations and was expressing the contemporary understanding of the term "natural born citizen." He was an acknowledged and recognized expert on the subject who had great influence on the Framers of the Constitution.

And when you read the entire chapter in context it's perfectly clear that "natural born citizens" are something different and distinct from "citizens," which is exactly the distinction that the Framers drew in using the term "natural born citizen" as a qualification to be president. As I said before, that term is nowhere used in the Constitution EXCEPT for that particular clause, and that fact has meaning, and the meaning is that the Framers intended to disqualify from the office of the president any person who is NOT a "natural born citizen" as they understood the phrase, which is as Vattel clearly states it.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

blah, blah, blah...

...Seventeen lawsuits have been filed and all have been dismissed by the courts...

blah, blah, blah...

Seth, of course, knows better than all the finest legal minds of his nation. They're either all incompetent, or all been paid off by marxists; there not being a single conservative and non-corrupt judge in the entire country that would do the right thing...

[Collector1337]

Oh look, trying to rewrite history.

[Hermit]

"in a state militia"

[mistermack]

The people have the right to keep and bear arms in a state militia

"in a state militia"

There it is, in black and white.

So convicted murderers and terrorists also have the same right. They are people, after all.
Also the insane, and children under ten, and even women! They all qualify.

But wait : It's ok to place conditions, on what's in the constitution !!
Job sorted. Place any condition you like. It's perfectly ok, to add any proviso you like to what the Biblius Americanus has written in it.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

blah, blah, blah...

...Seventeen lawsuits have been filed and all have been dismissed by the courts...

blah, blah, blah...

Seth, of course, knows better than all the finest legal minds of his nation.

Er, they aren't the finest legal minds of anywhere, the are mindless ideological hacks with law degrees, which are a dime a dozen these days because the left wing outright Marxist hacks at the nations law schools who masquerade as law professors will give a law degree to any Marxist useful idiot winning to chant back to them their Marxist ideology for four years.

So yes I do know better than they do because I read the Constitution as it was written, not as I would like it to be written.
And if that means Ted Cruz or any other candidate cannot be president, no matter how much I might desire them to be president, they cannot be president, and neither can Barack Obama. Sauce, goose, gander.

They're either all incompetent, or all been paid off by marxists; there not being a single conservative and non-corrupt judge in the entire country that would do the right thing...

Ever hear of "judge shopping?"

[Seth]

The people have the right to keep and bear arms in a state militia

"in a state militia"

There it is, in black and white.

Er, not quite. The image is of a blatantly false attempt to propagandize AP student placement exams by falsely and quite deliberately misstating the law.

So convicted murderers and terrorists also have the same right. They are people, after all.]
Also the insane, and children under ten, and even women! They all qualify.

As usual you demonstrate the intellectual incapacity to distinguish between those who have forfeited their RKBA due to malfeasance or an adjudicated inability to peaceably exercise that right, minor children who have not yet reached their legal majority and law-abiding citizens entitled to full enjoyment of all of their constitutional and civil rights.

But wait : It's ok to place conditions, on what's in the constitution !!
Job sorted. Place any condition you like. It's perfectly ok, to add any proviso you like to what the Biblius Americanus has written in it.

Just goes to show that your understanding of the law is as faulty as that of Harvard Marxist law edumacators.

[Tero]

This is getting boring. You are not getting rid of Obama by Nov 2016.
***

The Second Amendment isn’t there for duck hunting. It’s there to protect us from tyrannical government.

It’s an argument that’s often echoed by gun nuts – as though their fully-loaded AR-15 with 100-bullet drum will keep them safe from Predator drones and cruise missiles. If indeed this is the true intent of the 2nd Amendment, protection from the government, then here’s the newsflash: you guys are woefully outgunned. And the 2nd Amendment would have allowed you to own a cannon and a warship, so America today would look more like Somalia today with well-armed warlords running their own little fiefdoms in defiance of the federal government.

But luckily, this was never the intent of the 2nd Amendment. Our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check. It was all about protecting the American government from both foreign and domestic threats.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/1 ... e-gun-nuts

Have at it. This was supposed to your 2nd amendment romper room.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

blah, blah, blah...

...Seventeen lawsuits have been filed and all have been dismissed by the courts...

blah, blah, blah...

Seth, of course, knows better than all the finest legal minds of his nation.

Er, they aren't the finest legal minds of anywhere, the are mindless ideological hacks with law degrees, which are a dime a dozen these days because the left wing outright Marxist hacks at the nations law schools who masquerade as law professors will give a law degree to any Marxist useful idiot winning to chant back to them their Marxist ideology for four years.

So yes I do know better than they do because I read the Constitution as it was written, not as I would like it to be written.
And if that means Ted Cruz or any other candidate cannot be president, no matter how much I might desire them to be president, they cannot be president, and neither can Barack Obama. Sauce, goose, gander.

They're either all incompetent, or all been paid off by marxists; there not being a single conservative and non-corrupt judge in the entire country that would do the right thing...

Ever hear of "judge shopping?"

So, all the financial might and righteous anger of Tea Party types, desperate to get rid of Obama at any cost have not been able to mount a successful legal challenge, and fix what you (a non-lawyer) have authoritatively claim to be a legal wrong?

Surely they could shop for a judge that shares their contempt for Obama, and is willing to try such a case?

But no, the smart minority in the Tea Party knew there was no case, and settled for sniping and innuendo...