It is not racist to question Obama's citizenship

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#251 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

...Democrats and republicans are, but libertarians are not. The libertarian party is the only significant party...Laihendi

lol

#252 Posted by PannicAtack (21040 posts) -

Laihendi, if you took this in front of a judge you'd be laughed out of the courtroom. If you ask a lawyer or a professor of law, they aren't going to back you. The legal system does not support your argument. The academic community does not support your argument. These are people who have spent their lives studying the subject - it's their entire livelihood. You, unless I am sorely mistaken, are a teenager on the internet. Do you realize the implications of this?

#253 Posted by Laihendi (5834 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"] No, according to the Vattel excerpt you quoted it's just the father. Pretty sexist, honestly.

But here's the thing - Vattel does not define what our legal system qualifies as "natural born." Our legal system decides what qualifies as "natural born" in this country. What would happen if you tried to bring up Vattel in court? Apart from having the judge roll his or her eyes at you, not a whole lot. You don't seem to get this.

22Toothpicks
The constitution does not define "natural-born citizen" which is why we have to look at the influences of the founders to understand what exactly they meant by that term.

Yeah like we do on the whole 2nd amendment debate and that is going so swimmingly well...

There isn't much room for interpretation of the 2nd amendment. We have a constitutional right to arm ourselves sufficiently to form an effective militia, and the gun regulation laws are a blatant violation of that right.
#254 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] The constitution does not define "natural-born citizen" which is why we have to look at the influences of the founders to understand what exactly they meant by that term.Laihendi
But our legal system has seen fit to define it as such. So no. Vattel isn't really relevant.

A legal system is not legitimate if it doesn't even acknowledge the intentions of the people that created it.

Hey Lai, are you going to respond to Jim's post on page 11? Or is that too inconvenient to your rationale for you to acknowledge?

#255 Posted by lostrib (44051 posts) -

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] The constitution does not define "natural-born citizen" which is why we have to look at the influences of the founders to understand what exactly they meant by that term.Laihendi
But our legal system has seen fit to define it as such. So no. Vattel isn't really relevant.

A legal system is not legitimate if it doesn't even acknowledge the intentions of the people that created it.

It doesnt need to, it recognizes the law of the land as layed out by the supreme court

#256 Posted by Laihendi (5834 posts) -

Laihendi, if you took this in front of a judge you'd be laughed out of the courtroom. If you ask a lawyer or a professor of law, they aren't going to back you. The legal system does not support your argument. The academic community does not support your argument. These are people who have spent their lives studying the subject - it's their entire livelihood. You, unless I am sorely mistaken, are a teenager on the internet. Do you realize the implications of this?

PannicAtack
I don't care what the lawyers and professors think. I do not care for prestige and assumptions of infallibility. I am an individual thinker and it is very clear that Obama's legitimacy as president is debatable.
#257 Posted by NEWMAHAY (3812 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

No. Obama is a natural born citizen according to the laws and courts of this country. What some French political philosopher from the mid-1700s might have thought is not relevant here. This might be the most laughably pathetic attempt at de-legitimizing the President that I've seen yet. You should give up and just focus your energies on Pokemon and Elijah Wood, as your efforts at political argument are atrocious.

worlock77

De Vattel is relevant here because he was a major influence on prominent US political figures from that time, including Benjamin Franklin and George Washington.

No, he is not relevant. That he may have influenced Washington, Franklin or whoever else is not relevant. His words are not the law of the United States. If the Founding Fathers had intended that the father be a US citizen in order for a person to be a "Natural Born" citizen then they would have wrote such requirement into the Constitution.

#258 Posted by PannicAtack (21040 posts) -

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]

Laihendi, if you took this in front of a judge you'd be laughed out of the courtroom. If you ask a lawyer or a professor of law, they aren't going to back you. The legal system does not support your argument. The academic community does not support your argument. These are people who have spent their lives studying the subject - it's their entire livelihood. You, unless I am sorely mistaken, are a teenager on the internet. Do you realize the implications of this?

Laihendi

I don't care what the lawyers and professors think. I do not care for prestige and assumptions of infallibility. I am an individual thinker and it is very clear that Obama's legitimacy as president is debatable.

This isn't about goddamn prestige, this is about credibility. These people have spent YEARS studying the law and legal theory. What's your credibility? What courses have you taken on the subject? How many books on legal theory have you read? On what foundations can you stand and say to the entire legal system "hey, you got it wrong for like over a hundred years, this thing actually means this, kthxbai"?

#259 Posted by GreySeal9 (25562 posts) -

Before I was giving Lai the benefit of the doubt by thinking that his though process is simply too ideologically-driven to make any sense, but now I'm beginning to think that he might simply be a special little guy.

#260 Posted by lostrib (44051 posts) -

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]

Laihendi, if you took this in front of a judge you'd be laughed out of the courtroom. If you ask a lawyer or a professor of law, they aren't going to back you. The legal system does not support your argument. The academic community does not support your argument. These are people who have spent their lives studying the subject - it's their entire livelihood. You, unless I am sorely mistaken, are a teenager on the internet. Do you realize the implications of this?

Laihendi

I don't care what the lawyers and professors think. I do not care for prestige and assumptions of infallibility. I am an individual thinker and it is very clear that Obama's legitimacy as president is debatable.

Nope, the courts already ruled on it. too bad

#261 Posted by NEWMAHAY (3812 posts) -

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]

Laihendi, if you took this in front of a judge you'd be laughed out of the courtroom. If you ask a lawyer or a professor of law, they aren't going to back you. The legal system does not support your argument. The academic community does not support your argument. These are people who have spent their lives studying the subject - it's their entire livelihood. You, unless I am sorely mistaken, are a teenager on the internet. Do you realize the implications of this?

Laihendi

it is very clear that Obama's legitimacy as president is debatable.

no, it isn't. Which is why he was swore in by the chief justice twice.

 

Our Supreme Court > You. Unless you want to argue against the Supreme Court. I am sure our founding fathers would approve of your belittling the Supreme Court decesion based on your completely flawed arguments.

#262 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="22Toothpicks"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] The constitution does not define "natural-born citizen" which is why we have to look at the influences of the founders to understand what exactly they meant by that term.Laihendi
Yeah like we do on the whole 2nd amendment debate and that is going so swimmingly well...

There isn't much room for interpretation of the 2nd amendment. We have a constitutional right to arm ourselves sufficiently to form an effective militia, and the gun regulation laws are a blatant violation of that right.

There's plenty of room for interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Is the point of an armed militia to defend the nation from a foreign (as was essentially the case in the Founding Fathers' day, when there wasn't really a standing, professional army)? Is the 2nd Amendment for personal defense? If so then why doesn't the text just say that instead of vagueries about the militia?

#263 Posted by Laihendi (5834 posts) -
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] They made their views on slavery perfectly clear, whether they were contradictory or not. Just like they made their views clear on minorities or women voting. The point going over your head is that you cannot simultaneously say that whatever the founder original intent was must be observed 100% while also deciding to ignore clearly stated original intent when you disagree with it.

It doesn't matter how clear they made their views on slavery. Their views on slavery were irrational and they contradicted their value of individual liberty. I am saying what the founders intended with regards to individual liberty must be respected if the constitution is to have any credibility as a legal document, and if the US government is to have any credibility as a governing institution. Even in the case of slavery it had to be formally outlawed with an amendment by following the proper procedures established by the founders.

You're still, either deliberately or not, missing the point. Either founder original intent is basically GOSPEL to be followed RELIGIOUSLY or it is NOT gospel but merely another data point. In which case, EVERYTHING about your argument completely falls apart. If founder original intent is not completely absolute, then searching through some obscure 18th century text for reasons why Obama is disqualified to be president is pointless. As Abbeten so astutely pointed out: You can either argue that Founder Original Intent is the be-all, end-all of everything that matters or not. If it IS all-powerful, then you cannot say things like "their views on slavery were irrational" because their being the founders and their original intent trumps everything. If it is NOT the be-all, end-all of everything, then the Supreme Court swearing Obama into office de-facto makes him qualified to hold the office and you lose your trump card. So either you need to agree with the founders that slavery, denying women and minorities the right to vote, etc. should be upheld because it was "original intent" or you need to accept that Obama is allowed to be president because the Supreme Court is in charge of interpreting the Constitution and they have spoken by swearing him in twice. Logically speaking, those are your two choices. Pick one. Do I expect you to pick one? No. No I do not. But rational people will know that this is the corner you are in.

You are over simplifying this. Founder intent as written in the constitution should not be accepted unconditionally or rejected, because the constitution has good elements and bad elements. However, repealing the bad parts should be done with the procedures established by the constitution or else the constitution no longer has any legitimacy. Also if we try to reinterpret what the founders meant with the constitution in order to suit our purposes then once again the constitution no longer has any legitimacy. If something can mean anything, then it doesn't really mean anything at all.
#264 Posted by NEWMAHAY (3812 posts) -
OP has littered this thread with fallacious arguments.DroidPhysX
Its unbelievable that people actually have similar thought processes to his.
#265 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] It doesn't matter how clear they made their views on slavery. Their views on slavery were irrational and they contradicted their value of individual liberty. I am saying what the founders intended with regards to individual liberty must be respected if the constitution is to have any credibility as a legal document, and if the US government is to have any credibility as a governing institution. Even in the case of slavery it had to be formally outlawed with an amendment by following the proper procedures established by the founders.Laihendi
You're still, either deliberately or not, missing the point. Either founder original intent is basically GOSPEL to be followed RELIGIOUSLY or it is NOT gospel but merely another data point. In which case, EVERYTHING about your argument completely falls apart. If founder original intent is not completely absolute, then searching through some obscure 18th century text for reasons why Obama is disqualified to be president is pointless. As Abbeten so astutely pointed out: You can either argue that Founder Original Intent is the be-all, end-all of everything that matters or not. If it IS all-powerful, then you cannot say things like "their views on slavery were irrational" because their being the founders and their original intent trumps everything. If it is NOT the be-all, end-all of everything, then the Supreme Court swearing Obama into office de-facto makes him qualified to hold the office and you lose your trump card. So either you need to agree with the founders that slavery, denying women and minorities the right to vote, etc. should be upheld because it was "original intent" or you need to accept that Obama is allowed to be president because the Supreme Court is in charge of interpreting the Constitution and they have spoken by swearing him in twice. Logically speaking, those are your two choices. Pick one. Do I expect you to pick one? No. No I do not. But rational people will know that this is the corner you are in.

You are over simplifying this. Founder intent as written in the constitution should not be accepted unconditionally or rejected, because the constitution has good elements and bad elements. However, repealing the bad parts should be done with the procedures established by the constitution or else the constitution no longer has any legitimacy. Also if we try to reinterpret what the founders meant with the constitution in order to suit our purposes then once again the constitution no longer has any legitimacy. If something can mean anything, then it doesn't really mean anything at all.

And Laihendi just put up a nice rebuttal to his own goddamn argument. Congratulations f*ckwit.

#266 Posted by Laihendi (5834 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="22Toothpicks"] Yeah like we do on the whole 2nd amendment debate and that is going so swimmingly well...worlock77

There isn't much room for interpretation of the 2nd amendment. We have a constitutional right to arm ourselves sufficiently to form an effective militia, and the gun regulation laws are a blatant violation of that right.

There's plenty of room for interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Is the point of an armed militia to defend the nation from a foreign (as was essentially the case in the Founding Fathers' day, when there wasn't really a standing, professional army)? Is the 2nd Amendment for personal defense? If so then why doesn't the text just say that instead of vagueries about the militia?

There is nothing vague about it. A militia is a voluntary organization by the people, and it is therefore for the people. It is for them to protect themselves from any threat, foreign or domestic. The government today has a monopoly on arms and we have no legal means of protecting ourselves from it.
#267 Posted by lostrib (44051 posts) -

where is your proof that this was their intent? or that this writer actually influenced benjamin franklin and washington (only 2 of the founding fathers)? 

#268 Posted by Laihendi (5834 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] You're still, either deliberately or not, missing the point. Either founder original intent is basically GOSPEL to be followed RELIGIOUSLY or it is NOT gospel but merely another data point. In which case, EVERYTHING about your argument completely falls apart. If founder original intent is not completely absolute, then searching through some obscure 18th century text for reasons why Obama is disqualified to be president is pointless. As Abbeten so astutely pointed out: You can either argue that Founder Original Intent is the be-all, end-all of everything that matters or not. If it IS all-powerful, then you cannot say things like "their views on slavery were irrational" because their being the founders and their original intent trumps everything. If it is NOT the be-all, end-all of everything, then the Supreme Court swearing Obama into office de-facto makes him qualified to hold the office and you lose your trump card. So either you need to agree with the founders that slavery, denying women and minorities the right to vote, etc. should be upheld because it was "original intent" or you need to accept that Obama is allowed to be president because the Supreme Court is in charge of interpreting the Constitution and they have spoken by swearing him in twice. Logically speaking, those are your two choices. Pick one. Do I expect you to pick one? No. No I do not. But rational people will know that this is the corner you are in.worlock77

You are over simplifying this. Founder intent as written in the constitution should not be accepted unconditionally or rejected, because the constitution has good elements and bad elements. However, repealing the bad parts should be done with the procedures established by the constitution or else the constitution no longer has any legitimacy. Also if we try to reinterpret what the founders meant with the constitution in order to suit our purposes then once again the constitution no longer has any legitimacy. If something can mean anything, then it doesn't really mean anything at all.

And Laihendi just put up a nice rebuttal to his own goddamn argument. Congratulations f*ckwit.

No I did not. Slavery was outlawed with the procedures established within the constitution, and that is fine since slavery contradicted the primary libertarian principles of the constitution.
#269 Posted by GreySeal9 (25562 posts) -

where is your proof that this was their intent? or that this writer actually influenced benjamin franklin and washington (only 2 of the founding fathers)? 

lostrib

And even if the writer influenced them, that doesn't in any way mean they took to heart everything this guy said or intended for his views on natural-born citizen to apply to US law.

#270 Posted by Laihendi (5834 posts) -

where is your proof that this was their intent? or that this writer actually influenced benjamin franklin and washington (only 2 of the founding fathers)? 

lostrib

pres-george-washington-consulted-law-of-From the very first day this government was operating George Washington was reading that book.

#271 Posted by lostrib (44051 posts) -

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

where is your proof that this was their intent? or that this writer actually influenced benjamin franklin and washington (only 2 of the founding fathers)? 

Laihendi

pres-george-washington-consulted-law-of-From the very first day this government was operating George Washington was reading that book.

that's not proof of their intent or that it actually influenced them? plus george washington is one man

#272 Posted by NEWMAHAY (3812 posts) -

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

where is your proof that this was their intent? or that this writer actually influenced benjamin franklin and washington (only 2 of the founding fathers)? 

Laihendi

pres-george-washington-consulted-law-of-From the very first day this government was operating George Washington was reading that book.

and?

 

If you think this was their definition, they would of made that obviously clear. Clearly you are saying that have one thing in mind. Why didn't they specify? Please of enlighen one.

#273 Posted by Laihendi (5834 posts) -

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

where is your proof that this was their intent? or that this writer actually influenced benjamin franklin and washington (only 2 of the founding fathers)? 

GreySeal9

And even if the writer influenced them, that doesn't in any way mean they took to heart everything this guy said or intended for his views on natural-born citizen to apply to US law.

It does not prove that de Vattel's views were the intended interpretation, but it indicates the possibility that it was. That is why the legitimacy of Obama's presidency is debatable.
#274 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] There isn't much room for interpretation of the 2nd amendment. We have a constitutional right to arm ourselves sufficiently to form an effective militia, and the gun regulation laws are a blatant violation of that right.Laihendi

There's plenty of room for interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Is the point of an armed militia to defend the nation from a foreign (as was essentially the case in the Founding Fathers' day, when there wasn't really a standing, professional army)? Is the 2nd Amendment for personal defense? If so then why doesn't the text just say that instead of vagueries about the militia?

There is nothing vague about it. A militia is a voluntary organization by the people, and it is therefore for the people. It is for them to protect themselves from any threat, foreign or domestic. The government today has a monopoly on arms and we have no legal means of protecting ourselves from it.

No where in the Constitution is that stated.

And the government has a monopoly on arms? Since when?

#275 Posted by Laihendi (5834 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

where is your proof that this was their intent? or that this writer actually influenced benjamin franklin and washington (only 2 of the founding fathers)? 

lostrib

pres-george-washington-consulted-law-of-From the very first day this government was operating George Washington was reading that book.

that's not proof of their intent or that it actually influenced them? plus george washington is one man

George Washington was not just a man. He was a towering figure in the establishment of this country. Also why would he read this book on his first day as president if he did not intend to implement these ideas?
#276 Posted by lostrib (44051 posts) -

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

where is your proof that this was their intent? or that this writer actually influenced benjamin franklin and washington (only 2 of the founding fathers)? 

Laihendi

And even if the writer influenced them, that doesn't in any way mean they took to heart everything this guy said or intended for his views on natural-born citizen to apply to US law.

It does not prove that de Vattel's views were the intended interpretation, but it indicates the possibility that it was. That is why the legitimacy of Obama's presidency is debatable.

except it's not because it was debated and found legitimate. moron

#277 Posted by PannicAtack (21040 posts) -

Laihendi, you want to talk about the founders' intent? How about the early draft from James Madison, the guy who wrote the damn thing?

"No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."James Madison

This isn't hard, you know.

#278 Posted by GreySeal9 (25562 posts) -

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

where is your proof that this was their intent? or that this writer actually influenced benjamin franklin and washington (only 2 of the founding fathers)? 

Laihendi

pres-george-washington-consulted-law-of-From the very first day this government was operating George Washington was reading that book.

And?

It seems you missed the part that says "The pages of Vattel, Law of Nations, lay open to the President's scrutiny, but it is not to be hastily assumed that he found in them the answer to his problem." 

Reading a book/=/intended for its philisophy to inform our constitution/laws.

#279 Posted by NEWMAHAY (3812 posts) -

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

pres-george-washington-consulted-law-of-From the very first day this government was operating George Washington was reading that book.

Laihendi

that's not proof of their intent or that it actually influenced them? plus george washington is one man

George Washington was not just a man. He was a towering figure in the establishment of this country. Also why would he read this book on his first day as president if he did not intend to implement these ideas?

/facepalm

 

Its a 900 page book and the natural-born citizen is the only thing you are referencing? 2 founding fathers looked into the book. How many people contributed to the constitution? 

 

You have no basis for your argument

 

#280 Posted by Laihendi (5834 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

There's plenty of room for interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Is the point of an armed militia to defend the nation from a foreign (as was essentially the case in the Founding Fathers' day, when there wasn't really a standing, professional army)? Is the 2nd Amendment for personal defense? If so then why doesn't the text just say that instead of vagueries about the militia?

worlock77

There is nothing vague about it. A militia is a voluntary organization by the people, and it is therefore for the people. It is for them to protect themselves from any threat, foreign or domestic. The government today has a monopoly on arms and we have no legal means of protecting ourselves from it.

No where in the Constitution is that stated.

And the government has a monopoly on arms? Since when?

The government has a monopoly on arms because if they own a military grade weapon then that is fine, but if you own one they will arrest you. And it explicitly states in the constitution that we have a right to bear arms so that we may form a militia. If you will use deductive reasoning then you will understand that the purpose of a militia is to allow citizens to defend themselves from threats.
#281 Posted by PannicAtack (21040 posts) -
So you're claiming Obama isn't a natural-born citizen according to the laws of the United States, and your evidence is that... George Washington read a book. Are you incapable of reflecting on the things you say, or do you just assume everything you type is right?
#282 Posted by GreySeal9 (25562 posts) -

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

where is your proof that this was their intent? or that this writer actually influenced benjamin franklin and washington (only 2 of the founding fathers)? 

Laihendi

And even if the writer influenced them, that doesn't in any way mean they took to heart everything this guy said or intended for his views on natural-born citizen to apply to US law.

It does not prove that de Vattel's views were the intended interpretation, but it indicates the possibility that it was. That is why the legitimacy of Obama's presidency is debatable.

There is clearly something wrong with you.

Lots of things are "possible." Obama's legitimacy is not based on what is "possible."

You have no evidence that Vettel's views had any bearing on our country's laws and constitution.

#283 Posted by Laihendi (5834 posts) -

Laihendi, you want to talk about the founders' intent? How about the early draft from James Madison, the guy who wrote the damn thing?

[quote="James Madison"]"No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."PannicAtack

This isn't hard, you know.

So they went out of their way to change it from that. What is your point? That just proves that they weren't satisfied with it being written as that.
#284 Posted by PannicAtack (21040 posts) -
[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]

Laihendi, you want to talk about the founders' intent? How about the early draft from James Madison, the guy who wrote the damn thing?

[quote="James Madison"]"No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."Laihendi

This isn't hard, you know.

So they went out of their way to change it from that. What is your point? That just proves that they weren't satisfied with it being written as that.

So basically "founder intent" means nothing unless it's convenient to you?
#285 Posted by Laihendi (5834 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

where is your proof that this was their intent? or that this writer actually influenced benjamin franklin and washington (only 2 of the founding fathers)? 

GreySeal9

pres-george-washington-consulted-law-of-From the very first day this government was operating George Washington was reading that book.

And?

It seems you missed the part that says "The pages of Vattel, Law of Nations, lay open to the President's scrutiny, but it is not to be hastily assumed that he found in them the answer to his problem." 

Reading a book/=/intended for its philisophy to inform our constitution/laws.

I am not saying that Obama's presidency is certainly illegitimate. I am just saying that the legitimacy is debatable. It is foolish to assume Washington agreed with everything in that book, but it is even more foolish to assume that he didn't agree with any of it.
#286 Posted by PannicAtack (21040 posts) -
[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

pres-george-washington-consulted-law-of-From the very first day this government was operating George Washington was reading that book.

Laihendi

And?

It seems you missed the part that says "The pages of Vattel, Law of Nations, lay open to the President's scrutiny, but it is not to be hastily assumed that he found in them the answer to his problem." 

Reading a book/=/intended for its philisophy to inform our constitution/laws.

I am not saying that Obama's presidency is certainly illegitimate. I am just saying that the legitimacy is debatable. It is foolish to assume Washington agreed with everything in that book, but it is even more foolish to assume that he didn't agree with any of it.

It HAS been debated, by people who know more about the law, legal theory, and government than you do. And you know what they came up with?
#287 Posted by Laihendi (5834 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"]

Laihendi, you want to talk about the founders' intent? How about the early draft from James Madison, the guy who wrote the damn thing?

[quote="James Madison"]"No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."PannicAtack

This isn't hard, you know.

So they went out of their way to change it from that. What is your point? That just proves that they weren't satisfied with it being written as that.

So basically "founder intent" means nothing unless it's convenient to you?

It clearly was not their intent to let any person born in the US be eligible for president or else they would not have deliberately rewritten the constitution so that it wouldn't say that.
#288 Posted by NEWMAHAY (3812 posts) -

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

pres-george-washington-consulted-law-of-From the very first day this government was operating George Washington was reading that book.

Laihendi

And?

It seems you missed the part that says "The pages of Vattel, Law of Nations, lay open to the President's scrutiny, but it is not to be hastily assumed that he found in them the answer to his problem." 

Reading a book/=/intended for its philisophy to inform our constitution/laws.

I am not saying that Obama's presidency is certainly illegitimate. I am just saying that the legitimacy is debatable. It is foolish to assume Washington agreed with everything in that book, but it is even more foolish to assume that he didn't agree with any of it.

/facepalm

Its a 900 page book and the natural-born citizen is the only thing you are referencing? 2 founding fathers looked into the book.

 

How many people contributed to the constitution? You have no basis for your argument. If it was so damn critical, it would of been put into the constitution since the Presidential office is the most sacred individiual position in the United States.

You are wrong.

#289 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]You are over simplifying this. Founder intent as written in the constitution should not be accepted unconditionally or rejected, because the constitution has good elements and bad elements. However, repealing the bad parts should be done with the procedures established by the constitution or else the constitution no longer has any legitimacy. Also if we try to reinterpret what the founders meant with the constitution in order to suit our purposes then once again the constitution no longer has any legitimacy. If something can mean anything, then it doesn't really mean anything at all.Laihendi

And Laihendi just put up a nice rebuttal to his own goddamn argument. Congratulations f*ckwit.

No I did not. Slavery was outlawed with the procedures established within the constitution, and that is fine since slavery contradicted the primary libertarian principles of the constitution.

I did not say anything about slavery. My point is this whole thread you've been trying to interpret the Founders' intent to suit your own purposes. And yet here you are saying that if we interpret the Founders' intention to suit our own purposes then the Constitution doesn't mean anything at all.

#290 Posted by PannicAtack (21040 posts) -

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] So they went out of their way to change it from that. What is your point? That just proves that they weren't satisfied with it being written as that.Laihendi
So basically "founder intent" means nothing unless it's convenient to you?

It clearly was not their intent to let any person born in the US be eligible for president or else they would not have deliberately rewritten the constitution so that it wouldn't say that.

I've got what Madison actually wrote. You've got what Washington possibly read. Which do you think is more relevant?

#291 Posted by Laihendi (5834 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

And?

It seems you missed the part that says "The pages of Vattel, Law of Nations, lay open to the President's scrutiny, but it is not to be hastily assumed that he found in them the answer to his problem." 

Reading a book/=/intended for its philisophy to inform our constitution/laws.

PannicAtack
I am not saying that Obama's presidency is certainly illegitimate. I am just saying that the legitimacy is debatable. It is foolish to assume Washington agreed with everything in that book, but it is even more foolish to assume that he didn't agree with any of it.

It HAS been debated, by people who know more about the law, legal theory, and government than you do. And you know what they came up with?

More vague appeals to authority. Truth isn't determined by consensus and figures of authority.
#292 Posted by lostrib (44051 posts) -

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

pres-george-washington-consulted-law-of-From the very first day this government was operating George Washington was reading that book.

Laihendi

And?

It seems you missed the part that says "The pages of Vattel, Law of Nations, lay open to the President's scrutiny, but it is not to be hastily assumed that he found in them the answer to his problem." 

Reading a book/=/intended for its philisophy to inform our constitution/laws.

I am not saying that Obama's presidency is certainly illegitimate. I am just saying that the legitimacy is debatable. It is foolish to assume Washington agreed with everything in that book, but it is even more foolish to assume that he didn't agree with any of it.

At this point, what does it matter? What is the point of this debate?

#293 Posted by GreySeal9 (25562 posts) -

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

pres-george-washington-consulted-law-of-From the very first day this government was operating George Washington was reading that book.

Laihendi

And?

It seems you missed the part that says "The pages of Vattel, Law of Nations, lay open to the President's scrutiny, but it is not to be hastily assumed that he found in them the answer to his problem." 

Reading a book/=/intended for its philisophy to inform our constitution/laws.

I am not saying that Obama's presidency is certainly illegitimate. I am just saying that the legitimacy is debatable. It is foolish to assume Washington agreed with everything in that book, but it is even more foolish to assume that he didn't agree with any of it.

And I didn't say he didn't agree with any of it (reading comprehension is key). Neither of us knows the extent to which he agreed with it, so the point is boot. 

No, it is not debatable. You have no evidence that Vattel's views of natural born citizenship had any bearing on our constitution/laws.

#294 Posted by Laihendi (5834 posts) -
[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"] So basically "founder intent" means nothing unless it's convenient to you?

It clearly was not their intent to let any person born in the US be eligible for president or else they would not have deliberately rewritten the constitution so that it wouldn't say that.

Hey, I've got what Madison actually wrote. You've got what Washington possibly read.

Madison wrote that and then he deliberately took it out. That is proof that he changed his mind about including that in the constitution. If he was fine with that being in the constitution then he would have left it.
#295 Posted by PannicAtack (21040 posts) -

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] I am not saying that Obama's presidency is certainly illegitimate. I am just saying that the legitimacy is debatable. It is foolish to assume Washington agreed with everything in that book, but it is even more foolish to assume that he didn't agree with any of it.Laihendi
It HAS been debated, by people who know more about the law, legal theory, and government than you do. And you know what they came up with?

More vague appeals to authority. Truth isn't determined by consensus and figures of authority.

If I were to cite a scientific paper at you in response to you saying, for example, that vaccines cause autism, would you dismiss that as an "appeal to authority"?

#296 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] There is nothing vague about it. A militia is a voluntary organization by the people, and it is therefore for the people. It is for them to protect themselves from any threat, foreign or domestic. The government today has a monopoly on arms and we have no legal means of protecting ourselves from it.Laihendi

No where in the Constitution is that stated.

And the government has a monopoly on arms? Since when?

The government has a monopoly on arms because if they own a military grade weapon then that is fine, but if you own one they will arrest you. And it explicitly states in the constitution that we have a right to bear arms so that we may form a militia. If you will use deductive reasoning then you will understand that the purpose of a militia is to allow citizens to defend themselves from threats.

And again, my point that in their day the militia was essentially the only kind of defense this fledgling nation had. Would that amendment be there if they had a standing professional military then?

#297 Posted by lostrib (44051 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"]It HAS been debated, by people who know more about the law, legal theory, and government than you do. And you know what they came up with?PannicAtack

More vague appeals to authority. Truth isn't determined by consensus and figures of authority.

If I were to cite a scientific paper at you in response to you saying, for example, that vaccines cause autism, would you dismiss that as an "appeal to authority"?

oh god, not that crap

#298 Posted by Laihendi (5834 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

And?

It seems you missed the part that says "The pages of Vattel, Law of Nations, lay open to the President's scrutiny, but it is not to be hastily assumed that he found in them the answer to his problem." 

Reading a book/=/intended for its philisophy to inform our constitution/laws.

GreySeal9

I am not saying that Obama's presidency is certainly illegitimate. I am just saying that the legitimacy is debatable. It is foolish to assume Washington agreed with everything in that book, but it is even more foolish to assume that he didn't agree with any of it.

And I didn't say he didn't agree with any of it (reading comprehension is key). Neither of us knows the extent to which he agreed with it, so the point is boot. 

No, it is not debatable. You have no evidence that Vattel's views of natural born citizenship had any bearing on our constitution/laws.

Why would Washington read Law of Nations on his first day as president if he was not interested in incorporating those ideas into his policies of governing? The fact that he read that book on his first day, the first day that this government functioned, makes it clear that he took de Vattel's ideas very seriously.
#299 Posted by NEWMAHAY (3812 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] I am not saying that Obama's presidency is certainly illegitimate. I am just saying that the legitimacy is debatable. It is foolish to assume Washington agreed with everything in that book, but it is even more foolish to assume that he didn't agree with any of it.

It HAS been debated, by people who know more about the law, legal theory, and government than you do. And you know what they came up with?

More vague appeals to authority. Truth isn't determined by consensus and figures of authority.

The authority that is trusted to make this decision was the Supreme Court. Unless you want to ignore the constitution, I mean thats cool if you want too.
#300 Posted by lostrib (44051 posts) -

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] I am not saying that Obama's presidency is certainly illegitimate. I am just saying that the legitimacy is debatable. It is foolish to assume Washington agreed with everything in that book, but it is even more foolish to assume that he didn't agree with any of it.Laihendi

And I didn't say he didn't agree with any of it (reading comprehension is key). Neither of us knows the extent to which he agreed with it, so the point is boot. 

No, it is not debatable. You have no evidence that Vattel's views of natural born citizenship had any bearing on our constitution/laws.

Why would Washington read Law of Nations on his first day as president if he was not interested in incorporating those ideas into his policies of governing? The fact that he read that book on his first day, the first day that this government functioned, makes it clear that he took de Vattel's ideas very seriously.

proof? don't know which ideas