That Obama eligibility issue could come back again

[MrJonno]

The basis of any law is actually the language its written in and 'natural born citizen' means nothing in English until someone defines it. Might as well say the president must be Quigzag and argue over what that means

[Coito ergo sum]

The basis of any law is actually the language its written in and 'natural born citizen' means nothing in English until someone defines it. Might as well say the president must be Quigzag and argue over what that means

That is a bit extreme.

At some point, words are held to mean what they are commonly used to mean. Generally, we refer to dictionaries and other such sources to arrive at a meaning when the import of a particular word needs to be explained.

No laws define every term used. If it did, then if this post was a law, I would have to include a definition section, explaining the meaning of every word used. Otherwise the words may all be just as well rendered Quigzag. Then, of course, since you have to use different words to define a word, we'd have to have a definitional section for the definitions.

Then it's definitional sections all the way down...

[MrJonno]

At some point, words are held to mean what they are commonly used to mean

Most words having many meanings and need to be very carefully used in any legal document. Often you do get even extremely common words like 'You' or 'I' specifically defined in such documents. If someone used the term 'natural born citizen' in the UK I'm afraid I can't see it being used in any other context than to be code for 'white', It also certainly couldnt be used to refer to anyone born via IVF or in fact any fertility treatment.

Any constitution that doesnt define what a human being is will be something that someone will abuse one day, reject your eternal soul (or rationalitiy) and how could such a person be human for example

[Coito ergo sum]

At some point, words are held to mean what they are commonly used to mean

Most words having many meanings and need to be very carefully used in any legal document. Often you do get even extremely common words like 'You' or 'I' specifically defined in such documents. If someone used the term 'natural born citizen' in the UK I'm afraid I can't see it being used in any other context than to be code for 'white', It also certainly couldnt be used to refer to anyone born via IVF or in fact any fertility treatment.

Any constitution that doesnt define what a human being is will be something that someone will abuse one day, reject your eternal soul (or rationalitiy) and how could such a person be human for example

The document was written in the 18th century. They did not have a formulaic system of writing legal documents with mountainous definition sections. It is what it is. Even today, we don't define every word.

In the 18th century, nobody knew about IVF or fertility treatments.

The British constitution does not define what a human being is. I'm not sure that any constitution defines what a human being is. Is there one?

[MrJonno]

The document was written in the 18th century. They did not have a formulaic system of writing legal documents with mountainous definition sections. It is what it is. Even today, we don't define every word.

Which is why its a very bad idea to have any laws that havent at least be reviewed in the last decade or two. Current UK murder law is 12 years old as we updated to remove the concept of something not being murder if they died more than a year and a day after the crime (to allow for life support systems and long term coma)

[Coito ergo sum]

The document was written in the 18th century. They did not have a formulaic system of writing legal documents with mountainous definition sections. It is what it is. Even today, we don't define every word.

Which is why its a very bad idea to have any laws that havent at least be reviewed in the last decade or two. Current UK murder law is 12 years old as we updated to remove the concept of something not being murder if they died more than a year and a day after the crime (to allow for life support systems and long term coma)

Parts of your constitution are far older than ours.

[MrJonno]

Well there is no single document for the British constitution and we generally just ignore older laws

[Coito ergo sum]

Well there is no single document for the British constitution and we generally just ignore older laws

I don't think your legal system does ignore them. But, if you just "ignore" older laws, then that sounds like a fucked up system.

[mistermack]

Well there is no single document for the British constitution and we generally just ignore older laws

I don't think your legal system does ignore them. But, if you just "ignore" older laws, then that sounds like a fucked up system.

Yes, it relies heavily on common sense.
It would never work in the US.

[MrJonno]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4619942.stm

Loads of silly laws

[Robert_S]

How long before some hick calls Hawaii's statehood into question?

[Svartalf]

Let's revoke Utah's first, until it is fully demonstrated that there is no collusion between church and state.

[apophenia]

"When Emperor Charlemagne died in 814 and no comet appeared, chroniclers simply invented one and inserted it into history, for comets in those days were closely associated with the deaths of great leaders. Twentieth-century quote-mongers are like the ninth-century comet-makers; they dream up things that never happened but which they think should have and then insert them into history. For some reason, American reactionaries have gone in more for quote-making than American radicals. This is possibly because the former feel more of a need for authoritative quotes than the latter. Radicals have plenty of quotations from Karl Marx, anyway, and probably see no need to add to the Marxist treasurehouse. Extreme rightists in America have a real problem, in any case; they would like to cite the Founding Fathers, but rarely find what they want in Franklin, Washington, and Jefferson. Hence the quote-faking."

They Never Said It: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, and Misleading Attributions
Paul F. Boller Jr. and John George

While it's possible that the founding fathers were influenced by Vattel, merely "possible" won't feed the bulldog — you need at least probable, and for such an important precedent, likely evidence that they did in fact base it on Vattel. If someone has any evidence other than the idea that Vattel being familiar to them, they might have based it on Vattel, please present it. Otherwise, it's a dead issue. If I recall my liberalism correctly, some argue that the bicameral legislature was modeled after Algonquin tribal government. Might have been. And it's possible that, if they might have based that on Algonquin tradition, other aspects of our Federal government may have been based on Algonquin tradition. Besides the obvious hermeneutic problems, which I'm not going to go into, the problem with using "might have" as a bar is that the set of things any part of the document might have been based on results in a set so full of things that it can't help but contain things that are contradictory to one another. "Might have" as a legal argument leads not into clarity, but greater confusion. And I don't see the court basing a constitutional precedent on "might have been". But maybe confusion is exactly what the birthers want. I think it's pretty clear that trying to divine what "might be" causing Orly Taitz to repeatedly hammer at the issue will yield a set filled with more irrational Hobgoblins than sound reasons. But, as noted earlier, such opinions are mere speculation, and not a rational foundation for law.

[Pappa]

Well there is no single document for the British constitution and we generally just ignore older laws

I don't think your legal system does ignore them. But, if you just "ignore" older laws, then that sounds like a fucked up system.

Ignore wouldn't be the right word. New laws supersede the old, archaic laws, but they are rarely if ever explicitly mentioned as being replaced. With newer laws, the clauses are explicitly overruled, expanded upon or replaced. Most new laws here simply modify older (but historically recent) laws by mentioning the section and paragraph that is to be modified and the wording of the modification.

[Seth]

Well there is no single document for the British constitution and we generally just ignore older laws

I don't think your legal system does ignore them. But, if you just "ignore" older laws, then that sounds like a fucked up system.

Ignore wouldn't be the right word. New laws supersede the old, archaic laws, but they are rarely if ever explicitly mentioned as being replaced. With newer laws, the clauses are explicitly overruled, expanded upon or replaced. Most new laws here simply modify older (but historically recent) laws by mentioning the section and paragraph that is to be modified and the wording of the modification.

In point of fact, both in the US and in the UK, enactment of a new law does NOT overturn or modify an older law unless one of two things occurs: the new law expressly repeals the old law by explicit reference to it (statutory repeal), or; the new law and the old law are clearly and manifestly incompatible (repeal by implication) and there is indication of a legislative intent to repeal the old law. Otherwise, the new and old law must be harmonized as best as possible so that each is given the fullest effect possible.