The Great Debate – kibitzer’s edition

Posted on February 7, 2013 by Dr. Conspiracy

This is the companion article to “The Great Debate”, where comments on the debate, or continuation of the discussion from Bob Gard: Proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” may be made.

About Dr. Conspiracy

I'm not a real doctor, but I have a master's degree.
This entry was posted in Books, Citizenship and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

501 Responses to The Great Debate – kibitzer’s edition

  1. Dave B. says:
    February 7, 2013 at 4:07 pm  (Quote)

    Bob broke the internet.

  2. Publius says:
    February 7, 2013 at 4:08 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: Yeah, there is a chance but miniscule [that John Jay and Sir William Scott didn’t talk about certain things]. I also uncovered in Pellew’s book that Scott and Jay became friends and kept in touch afterwards with correspondence.

    The problem is that there are other gaps, and those gaps aren’t a miniscule chance. They’re huge.

    Here’s just one. London in the 1790s was a city of a million people. England is so close to France that to date, more than 800 people have made the crossing by swimming. Heck, the French used to rule England. Plenty of Englishmen speak French.

    You suppose that out of a million Londoners, Sir WIlliam Scott was the one who translated the 1797 edition of Vattel. But you have no documentary evidence that this is the case. His name is not listed as translator in the book, for example; nor do you have a genuine historical letter that pinpoints that he translated the work. It’s just a hunch.

    Here’s where so many writers and speculators on this kind of thing get tripped up. They imagine that because some thing might have happened, that’s good evidence that it did happen. That just isn’t the case.

    It’s just speculation. Speculation doesn’t equal proof.

    And against your speculation, there’s a mountain of real evidence: Quotes from real legal authorities. Quotes from historical authorities. Decisions in actual court cases, that went back and reviewed the meaning of such terms.

    This is why I earlier referred to your claims, in general, as being “doomed.”

  3. Publius says:
    February 7, 2013 at 4:09 pm  (Quote)

    Dave B.: Bob broke the internet.

    Nope. The interest in his book only overwhelmed the thread!

  4. JPotter says:
    February 7, 2013 at 4:11 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: I know you will find it impossible to believe that I would have researched and written this eBook if McCain had won. He was an unconstitutional candidate too in my book.

    Really? How does McCain, born to 2 citizens, not meet your definition?

    The current judicial interpretation of NBC has stood for over 100 years. Let’s assume it was the candidacy of someone you felt was ineligible that prompted you to start writing.

    If McCain is, in your mind, ineligible, then why wasn’t this project undertaken in 2000?

    Note, there are several easy outs here, you could say you were otherwise occupied, are now retired and have the time, etc. But if this has been a burning issue for you since the 8th grade, wouldn’t you have found the time over the nearly 40 years between your 8th grade experience and McCain’s first candidacy?

    Dave B.:
    Bob broke the internet.

    Now, that’s not fair. Bob inspired the breaking of the internet. It took a village.

  5. Dave B. says:
    February 7, 2013 at 4:16 pm  (Quote)

    Publius: The interest in his book only overwhelmed the thread!

    Poor Bob. If only there really were such interest in his book, he could still be charging twenty-five bucks for it.

  6. Whatever4 says:
    February 7, 2013 at 4:17 pm  (Quote)

    Aieeee! You closed the previous thread as I was commenting, and I lost the post. No problem. 🙂

    Mr. Gard: please clear this up for me. You said: “I did have a 4.0 in high school and I was denied a partial scholarship due to my gender and race to the six Ivy League universities I applied to. ”

    If you were 13 in 1960, then you would have been applying to colleges around 1965. There weren’t 6 Ivy League schools that accepted women until the 1970s. There are 8 Ivy League colleges. Princeton and Yale didn’t admit women until 1969. Harvard and Brown had separate women’s colleges that merged with the Ivy college in 1970 and 1971. Dartmouth first admitted women in 1972. Columbia College admitted women in 1983. Penn and Cornell admitted women from very early in their histories.

    So you either applied in the 1970s, are stretching the definition of Ivy League, or are mistaken in your memory. My experience with scholarships is also a bit different. We applied to the college separately for admission and aid. Aid discussions came after acceptance. Were you actually accepted to 6 Ivies then turned down for aid?

    Please clear these questions up as they certainly reflect on your veracity. (Voracity for AFU fans. )

  7. Publius says:
    February 7, 2013 at 4:18 pm  (Quote)

    Well, to be fair, I guess I meant the interest in discussing the ideas he has put into his book, rather than interest in reading 1700 pages. 😆

  8. donna says:
    February 7, 2013 at 4:21 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard:

    if you want to start with affirmative action, why don’t we begin with athletes?

    then we can move on to legacy acceptances and the leg up those who graduate from prestigious private schools receive

    and now, according to conservative bill bennett, MEN are receiving affirmative action (“a finger on the scale”) – women are blowing them away based on the applications alone

    According to historian David Oshinsky, on writing about Jonas Salk, “Most of the surrounding medical schools (Cornell, Columbia, Pennsylvania, and Yale) had rigid quotas in place. In 1935 Yale accepted 76 applicants from a pool of 501. About 200 of those applicants were Jewish and only five got in.” He notes that the dean’s instructions were remarkably precise: “Never admit more than five Jews, take only two Italian Catholics, and take no blacks at all.” As a result, Oshinsky added, “Jonas Salk and hundreds like him” enrolled in New York University instead.

  9. Majority Will says:
    February 7, 2013 at 4:24 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: “I did admit an estimated chance between 2% and 10% of being wrong.”

    WOW!!!
    That’s some mighty convincing statistical evidence there. Very scientificy.

    I’ve read from a self-proclaimed expert that 99.843% of all bullsh1t statistics are either made up on the spot or within 11.4 minutes thereafter.

  10. Dave B. says:
    February 7, 2013 at 4:37 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: “If I hadn’t found out about the meetings, then I would not have been able to make what I termed a small leap of faith. I did admit an estimated chance between 2% and 10% of being wrong. I gave an analogy that the likelihood of these two not discussing citizenship and subjectship, the crux of the prize and impressment problem, at their meetings, would be the same as two NFL Super-Bowl ring holders having a meeting and not discussing their Super Bowls, especially I might add here, if they were on a committe to discuss new rules. Yeah, there is a chance but miniscule. I also uncovered in Pellew’s book that Scott and Jay became friends and kept in touch afterwards with correspondence.”

    Bob, you’re not just presuming that discussions of citizenship occurred, you’re presuming what, specifically, was discussed, and with whom, and you’re presuming a specific result of such a discussion. You’re also presuming Sir William Scott is your “secret editor”, and is specifically responsible for the substitution of “natural born citizens” for “indigenes”. And you’re presuming a specific reason for the substitution. You’re presuming that John Jay had, years earlier, transmitted the same sense of “natural born citizen” to the Constitutional Convention and that the Convention had concurred with it; you’re presuming that the intent of the Convention was to impose such a specific limit on Presidential eligibility. And to prove all this, you produce a dinner invitation. The athleticism of your “small leap of faith” is absolutely astonishing!
    You’d have to be right about every single one of those presumptions for your theory to hold water. Seriously, do you think you only have “an estimated chance between 2% and 10% of being wrong”?

  11. ballantine says:
    February 7, 2013 at 4:42 pm  (Quote)

    Dave B.:
    Seriously, do you think you only have “an estimated chance between 2% and 10% of being wrong”?

    Seriously, it is somewhat irrational to think one can put odds on such rank speculation and completely irrational to think one has proven something. Such argument would actually be laughed at by a court.

    Wait. Washington was friends with William Rawle. Wow, in all their meetings, it is inconceivable that Rawle didn’t asked him about what natural born citizen meant. Wow, I just proved that Rawle had the correct definition in his Treatise. I think’s its at least 99% sure. Hey, this is easy.

  12. Welsh Dragon says:
    February 7, 2013 at 5:14 pm  (Quote)

    Maybe I’ve missed something since I’ve only been able to drop into this discussion for a few minutes at a time but:

    if John Jay met Sir William Scott in 1794 (which is pretty certain);

    if they discussed the term “natural born citizen” (which I suppose is possible, though I suspect unlikely);

    if Jay told Scott that that it too him it meant having two citizen parents ( which is even more unlikely);

    if Scott was the anonymous translator of the 1797 London edition of Vattel (which is highly unlikely – Scott was one the premier lawyers of his day, he would not have come cheap)

    WHY would Scott then substitute NBC for “indigenes” ? What would motivate him to do so? What does he gain from it? It’s not a better translation. It’s not even an important part of the book. To make the book more relevant to an infant republic whose future was still uncertain?

  13. gorefan says:
    February 7, 2013 at 5:19 pm  (Quote)

    ballantine: Washington was friends with William Rawle. Wow, in all their meetings, it is inconceivable that Rawle didn’t asked him about what natural born citizen meant.

    Rawle presented an essay titled “An Enquiry into the Best Means of Encouraging Immigration, Consistently with the Happiness and Safety of the Original Citizens.” on April 20th, 1787 in front of a group of Founders gathered at Benjamin Franklin’s house. This was just before the start of the Constitutional Convention. A number of delegates to the Convention heard Rawle’s presentation.

    I can safely say with a certainty of 98% that William Rawle is the chief influence on the Constitution wherever it discusses citizenship or naturalization.

  14. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 7, 2013 at 5:20 pm  (Quote)

    The previous thread was talking almost 10 seconds to generate, and the HTML was almost 5 MB. That’s why I shut these big things down. Going forward, folks should be able go get the cached version of the page much more quickly.

  15. US Citizen says:
    February 7, 2013 at 5:21 pm  (Quote)

    No wonder the book is over 1700 pages long.
    The title alone has over 120 characters.
    (143 if you count spaces)

    “ON GARD, OBAMA, YOU ARE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRESIDENT BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN, WHICH I SHALL PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT”

  16. ballantine says:
    February 7, 2013 at 5:26 pm  (Quote)

    Welsh Dragon:

    WHY would Scott then substitute NBC for “indigenes” ? What would motivate him to do so? What does he gain from it? It’s not a better translation. It’s not even an important part of the book. To make the book more relevant to an infant republic whose future was still uncertain?

    Yes, clearly when trying to find the best translation of a Swiss author writing in French for a British edition of a work for a British audience, one would clearly use an American definition that didn’t exist until after the author was dead. Makes perfect sense.

  17. Dave B. says:
    February 7, 2013 at 5:28 pm  (Quote)

    Doc, if you weren’t already in charge over here, I’d nominate you for the position.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    The previous thread was talking almost 10 seconds to generate, and the HTML was almost 5 MB. That’s why I shut these big things down. Going forward, folks should be able go get the cached version of the page much more quickly.

  18. Benji Franklin says:
    February 7, 2013 at 5:45 pm  (Quote)

    Welsh Dragon: if Scott was the anonymous translator of the 1797 London edition of Vattel (which is highly unlikely – Scott was one the premier lawyers of his day, he would not have come cheap)

    Not only that, Welsh Dragon, but what are the odds that the then legal and/or literary community or for that matter, Scott himself, would have not kept nor publicized some record or announcement of such an accomplishment?

    Scott was acknowledged as being competent – he would not have shrunk from claiming authorship – or denied it, given the fact that he was presumably commissioned to do it.

  19. Scientist says:
    February 7, 2013 at 5:49 pm  (Quote)

    Let’s run some numbers just for fun

    Bob says he has a 2-10% chance of being wrong about the conversation between Jay and Scott 220 years ago in London. So let’s say a 95% chance of being right.

    Now let’s say there is a 90% chance Jay transmitted that information to the actual Framers (since he was not at the Convention). I’m being generous to Bob, since I think the odds were much less.

    Now let’s say there is a 50% chance the Framers had Jay’s thoughts on Vattel from Scott in mind. Again, I’m being generous to Bob-given the history of the common law and their knowledge of it, they would be hard put to vary from that.

    Now let’s give the same 50% chance to the ratifiers (fair given the lack of any documents that support Bob).

    So, 0.95 x 0.9 x 0.5 x 0.5 = 0.21 Only a 21% chance that the ratifiers actually adopted the Vattel definition (again being generous to Bob).

    Now what is the Vattel definition: Born in the country to one or more citizen parents or ancestors. This is the definition used in Switzerland today and in the time of Vatttel and the meaning of what Vattel wrote in both standard French and English (I have lived in both France`and Quebec and speak decent French).

    So the odds Obama is ineligible (giving Bob every benefit of the doubt) = 0%
    For Marco Rubio and others in his situation of 0 citizen parents, 21% maximum. More likely 0%.

    I certainly wouldn’t impeach a President on a 0% chance of his being ineligible according to some guy who wrote a book on Amazon. Especially since violating the rules of a book on Amazon are not a high crime or misdemeanor. Nor would I deny a candidate the chance to run based on even a 21% chance, a number you only get by making the most favorable assumptions for Bob.

  20. donna says:
    February 7, 2013 at 6:00 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist:

    tom vilsack was abandoned at birth on hospital steps – as a cabinet member, he was in line for the presidency – he also ran for president in 2008

    why were there no questions about his parents?

  21. Paul says:
    February 7, 2013 at 6:13 pm  (Quote)

    My guess is Mr. Gard will fold and disappear in three… two… one…

  22. Publius says:
    February 7, 2013 at 6:15 pm  (Quote)

    ballantine: Wait. Washington was friends with William Rawle. Wow, in all their meetings, it is inconceivable that Rawle didn’t asked him about what natural born citizen meant. Wow, I just proved that Rawle had the correct definition in his Treatise. I think’s its at least 99% sure. Hey, this is easy.

    That’s kind of funny. But it does quite well illustrate the weakness and/ or failure of Bob’s argument there.

  23. Reality Check says:
    February 7, 2013 at 6:17 pm  (Quote)

    I was going to help Bob Gard post photos in the other thread so I will post the directions here. The first thing he should do is connect his computer directly to the router then disable all firewall and antivirus software. Do that for a week then I will provide step 2 for the small sum of $12.95.

  24. Publius says:
    February 7, 2013 at 6:42 pm  (Quote)

    Benji Franklin: Not only that, Welsh Dragon, but what are the odds that the then legal and/or literary community or for that matter, Scott himself, would have not kept nor publicized some record or announcement of such an accomplishment?

    I actually wondered that myself. In fact, we could say on that basis of the translator’s anonymity that we are 92% to 98% certain that Sir William Scott did not translate the 1797 edition of Vattel’s Law of Nations.

    Or, we could just go with some calculation of the odds. I’ll start by assuming that the translator was male. That gets us down to 500,000 people.

    Quoting from Wikipedia: “According to a 2006 European Commission report, 23 percent of UK residents are able to carry on a conversation in French.”

    It probably wasn’t much different in Scott’s day.

    But hey, let’s go much further than that. Let’s assume Scott was a great French speaker and potential translator (which we haven’t actually established, but let’s ignore that).

    And let’s assume that around a third that number of people could speak French in Scott’s day. This might be very generous. It may be in fact that since they were much closer to the days when the ruling class in England spoke French, as many Englishmen spoke French then as do today. (The days of French-speaking aristorcracy ended around 1400).

    So instead of 23%, let’s assume only 8%.

    And let’s assume only 1 out of 50 of those would’ve been a suitable translator.

    Oh, and we’ve already excluded all the women, remember?

    So we have 500,000 x 8% divided by 50 = at least 800 people who would’ve been equally suitable as William Scott to translate Vattel’s book.

    So we could estimate the chance that Scott was the translator (and this is ignoring the obvious point that if he had been the translator, surely he would’ve been proud enough of it to have his name on the book) as 1 out of 800.

    Which would make us, by this method, roughly “99.88% certain that Sir William Scott did not translate the 1797 edition of Vattel.”

  25. Publius says:
    February 7, 2013 at 6:47 pm  (Quote)

    As for posting any needed photos on the internet (hopefully Bob or C Stanton is reading this thread) – those can be posted to a web site (like the-constitutionist), or they can be uploaded to another site that hosts pictures, and then linked to. Tinypic.com works.

  26. Paper says:
    February 7, 2013 at 6:50 pm  (Quote)

    Hate to correct you Majority, but the correct span is within 12.6 minutes.

    Majority Will:

    I’ve read from a self-proclaimed expert that 99.843% of all bullsh1t statistics are either made up on the spot or within 11.4 minutes thereafter.

  27. Jim says:
    February 7, 2013 at 7:02 pm  (Quote)

    Heck, you folks have already blown Bob’s ramblings out of the water and Doc’s not even to page 100!!! 😀

  28. Majority Will says:
    February 7, 2013 at 7:15 pm  (Quote)

    Paper:
    Hate to correct you Majority, but the correct span is within 12.6 minutes.

    But I’ve never made a mistake. I thought I did once but I was . . . uh oh.

  29. Greatkim says:
    February 7, 2013 at 7:43 pm  (Quote)

    an exercise in Founders’ minds reading. Idiotic

  30. sfjeff says:
    February 7, 2013 at 8:35 pm  (Quote)

    Doc,

    I think you really need to at some point address Lupin’s points.

    Lupin- who is deserved as much credibility to his credentials as Bob is- is a self described French Attorney who has demonstrated his familiarity with Vattel to all of us for months if not years.

    Lupin- a native French speaker says that Vattel never used a term that would translate to what Bob says is the definition of “natural born”.

    For all of the editions of “Law of the Nations” that Bob appears to have bought or read, I don’t see how any logic about the Founding Fathers gets around the basic point:

    Vattel never said that a Natural Born Citizen requires two citizen parents.

    His entire argument appears to rest on Vattel having done so- yet according to Lupin- a native French speaker- he absolutely never did.

    Before arguing anything else, Bob needs to establish how he can refute Lupin’s assertion.

  31. Paper says:
    February 7, 2013 at 8:44 pm  (Quote)

    That follows the five second rule, just like a dropped waffle. If you realize you made a mistake and admit it within five seconds, it doesn’t count.

    Majority Will: But I’ve never made a mistake. I thought I did once but I was . . . uh oh.

  32. Dave B. says:
    February 7, 2013 at 8:49 pm  (Quote)

    Bob’s already thrown Vattel under the bus. He says it’s all John Jay’s fault.

    sfjeff:
    Doc,

    I think you really need to at some point address Lupin’s points.

    Lupin- who is deserved as much credibility to his credentials as Bob is- is a self described French Attorney who has demonstrated his familiarity with Vattel to all of us for months if not years.

    Lupin- a native French speaker says that Vattel never used a term that would translate to what Bob says is the definition of “natural born”.

    For all of the editions of “Law of the Nations” that Bob appears to have bought or read, I don’t see how any logic about the Founding Fathers gets around the basic point:

    Vattel never said that a Natural Born Citizen requires two citizen parents.

    His entire argument appears to rest on Vattel having done so- yet according to Lupin- a native French speaker- he absolutely never did.

    Before arguing anything else, Bob needs to establish how he can refute Lupin’s assertion.

  33. Keith says:
    February 7, 2013 at 8:52 pm  (Quote)

    Publius: So we could estimate the chance that Scott was the translator (and this is ignoring the obvious point that if he had been the translator, surely he would’ve been proud enough of it to have his name on the book) as 1 out of 800.

    Would the odds shift if it could be found that Smith did indeed translate ANY other book from French to English. Or from ANY language to English? Is there any evidence that he did any translation work what-so-ever?

  34. Keith says:
    February 7, 2013 at 8:56 pm  (Quote)

    Paper:
    That follows the five second rule, just like a dropped waffle.If you realize you made a mistake and admit it within five seconds, it doesn’t count.

    I’ve always wondered about that rule. If the waffle has been smeared with honey before being dropped, does that affect the timing (note the interaction with Murphy’s Law here). Also what about the floor? Is the timing affected by floor coverings? Carpet? Tile? Cork?

  35. Rickey says:
    February 7, 2013 at 9:12 pm  (Quote)

    Whatever4:

    Mr. Gard: please clear this up for me. You said: “I did have a 4.0 in high school and I was denied a partial scholarship due to my gender and race to the six Ivy League universities I applied to. ”

    If you were 13 in 1960, then you would have been applying to colleges around 1965. There weren’t 6 Ivy League schools that accepted women until the 1970s. There are 8 IvyLeague colleges. Princeton and Yale didn’t admit women until 1969. Harvard and Brown had separate women’s colleges that merged with the Ivy college in 1970 and 1971. Dartmouth first admitted women in 1972. Columbia College admitted women in 1983. Penn and Cornell admitted women from very early in their histories.

    So you either applied in the 1970s, are stretching the definition of Ivy League, or are mistaken in your memory. My experience with scholarships is also a bit different. We applied to the college separately for admission and aid. Aid discussions came after acceptance. Were you actually accepted to 6 Ivies then turned down for aid?

    I am curious about that as well. I sent an e-mail to Thomas J. Espenshade, Professor of Sociology at Princeton, who has written a book about affirmative action and college admissions. His response was not as precise as I had hoped, but he says that affirmative action at Princeton began “In the late 1960s, partly for racial and ethnic minorities, and partly for women.”

    1965 was not the “late 1960s.” Gard would have applied to his Ivy League schools in the fall of 1964. Executive Order 11246, which set out the Federal rules for affirmative action, was signed by LBJ on 9/24/65. Gard should have been matriculating as a freshman in college by then.

    Of course, Gard may not have applied to college out of high school. But if he didn’t go to college, what did he do? He would have been drafted if he failed to maintain a student deferment, but his colorful tales about being detained in Russia make no mention of him having military experience. Then there is the fact that his brief bio on the Terry Lakin Action Fund website says that he has a degree in political science (but does not say where he got it). It goes on to say, “After completing college he traveled through 120 countries on a dollar a day and became fluent in three languages.” His piece on Equatorial Guinea says that he was in Europe by June, 1969, and he would have been a member of the Class of 1969 if he went to college immediately after high school.

    If he graduated college in 1969, he could not possibly have been rejected from six Ivy League schools because of affirmative action in 1965 because there was no affirmative action for college admissions then. And does anybody believe the story that a Princeton recruiter came to his home to give him the bad news? A simple rejection letter would not have sufficed?

  36. Paper says:
    February 7, 2013 at 9:19 pm  (Quote)

    I can’t actually speak for waffles, just about admitting mistakes. I suspect, however, that if the honey comes from natural born citizen bees you can let it sit all day germ-free.

    I leave it to better minds than mine to determine if replacement queens (accepted by the hive and mating with citizen drones) produce natural born citizens or not.

    I am sure John Jay discussed this situation with someone.

    Keith: I’ve always wondered about that rule. If the waffle has been smeared with honey before being dropped, does that affect the timing (note the interaction with Murphy’s Law here). Also what about the floor? Is the timing affected by floor coverings? Carpet? Tile? Cork?

  37. justlw says:
    February 7, 2013 at 9:22 pm  (Quote)

    donna:
    tom vilsack was abandoned at birth on hospital steps – as a cabinet member, he was in line for the presidency – he also ran for president in 2008

    why were there no questions about his parents?

    Since the requirements for Secretary of Agriculture (or any other position in the line of succession past Vice President) are not as restrictive as that of the requirements to be president, it hasn’t been an issue in that case yet. We have previously had other people in the line of succession who were clearly not qualified (Constitutionally speaking) to be president; Kissinger comes immediately to mind. In those cases, they would be skipped over in favor of the next person in line.

    But yeah, funny about it not otherwise being an issue in ’08, although to be fair one plausible reason might be “Tom who?!”

  38. Scientist says:
    February 7, 2013 at 9:23 pm  (Quote)

    sfjeff: Vattel never said that a Natural Born Citizen requires two citizen parents.
    His entire argument appears to rest on Vattel having done so- yet according to Lupin- a native French speaker- he absolutely never did.

    Swiss citiizenship laws require ONE citizen parent. No country that I am aware of (and I have looked at quite a few) requires TWO. The plural form includes the singular- “Parents must pick up their children by 5PM” does not mean both parents must show up. I would call this the Achilles heel of the Donofrio/Apuzzo/Gard theories, except that implies but a single weak spot and they have more weak spots than Swiss cheese has holes (excuse the Vattelist pun).

  39. Welsh Dragon says:
    February 7, 2013 at 9:44 pm  (Quote)

    Keith: Would the odds shift if it could be found that Smith did indeed translate ANY other book from French to English. Or from ANY language to English? Is there any evidence that he did any translation work what-so-ever?

    FWIW I’ve not found any reference to Scott (not Smith) doing any translation work although in fairness I doubt if he would have been able to fulfill his role as Advocate General without a good knowledge of French,

  40. Keith says:
    February 7, 2013 at 9:49 pm  (Quote)

    Welsh Dragon: FWIW I’ve not found any reference to Scott (not Smith)

    Oops! My fingers seemed to have out run my brain on that one.

  41. Publius says:
    February 7, 2013 at 10:27 pm  (Quote)

    Keith: Would the odds shift if it could be found that Smith did indeed translate ANY other book from French to English. Or from ANY language to English? Is there any evidence that he did any translation work what-so-ever?

    Might shift a bit. Probably not much.

    But even if we could make it a whole 10 times more likely that he did the translation, that would still mean a 90% “certainty” that he didn’t do it.

    One wrinkle is: Even if we did find a translation done in his name, that would bring up the question again, more strongly: If he actually had done the 1797 Vattel, then why wouldn’t he have put his name to it?

    On the other side of things… guess what? While I was writing this I decided to do a bit of poking around, just for the heck of it. There were a bunch of William Scotts. Obviously the one we want was Lord Stowell, born in 1745.

    He studied not only law, but Ancient History, at Oxford.

    I managed to find and search the online catalog of the Oxford libraries (the biggest library in the world), and the Library of Congress, plus even Google Books as well. It’s kind of tricky to do, but depending on which parameters you hit, you can get the search down to a pretty small number of pages in every case.

    I certainly found stuff by Sir William Scott (Lord Stowell). Most of it, unsurprisingly, had to do with English legal cases. The ONLY thing I found that even looked interesting was a French-language “Pacte maritime, addressé aux nations neutres” supposedly written by Thomas Paine (yes, that Thomas Paine) and Baron Stowell.

    Paine was in Paris in the 1790s and early 1800s, and this brief (42 page) volume was published there. So was it written in French by Lord Stowell, or translated to French by Lord Stowell? No. It was translated (obviously from the native English of both Paine and Lord Stowell) by one Nicolas de Bonneville.

    Bottom line: I found no record whatsoever of Sir William Scott ever translating anything.

  42. Publius says:
    February 7, 2013 at 10:47 pm  (Quote)

    Publius: But even if we could make it a whole 10 times more likely that he did the translation, that would still mean a 90% “certainty” that he didn’t do it.

    Um… Actually, no. Sorry about that.

    It would still be an estimated 98.8% likelihood that the translation was done by someone other than Sir William Scott.

    If we increased the odds a HUNDRED times over in favor of the idea that he had done the translation (or 1 out of 8 instead of 1 out of 800), THEN the odds would STILL be 88% percent that someone else had done the translation.

    In other words: Unless he has some really strong documentary proof, Bob Gard’s idea that Sir William Scott did the 1797 translation of Vattel’s Law of Nations is extremely, extremely unlikely. Any way you cut it.

  43. C. Stanton says:
    February 7, 2013 at 11:45 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: (February 7, 2013 at 2:46 pm)

    I realize you are a novice at designing web sites. There is a difference between “Contact” which is a direct communication between the reader and the owner of the website and normally does not get posted on the site and the type of open “Comment” section that Doc has and virtually every other blog/website I am aware of has (Doc also has a “Contact” button up above where you can contact him privately).

    You may find this difficult to believe but my original design had a traditional “Comments” page. As Bob will confirm, a more Internet savvy friend of his that he consulted insisted a “Contact” page was of greater importance and that merging the two functions (as currently seen at the site), was the best compromise.

    What can I say?

  44. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 7, 2013 at 11:53 pm  (Quote)

    This is on my short list for first challenge, but I thought I might try something easier just to get the mechanism worked out.

    Dave B.: Before arguing anything else, Bob needs to establish how he can refute Lupin’s assertion.

  45. Publius says:
    February 8, 2013 at 12:04 am  (Quote)

    C. Stanton: You may find this difficult to believe but my original design had a traditional “Comments” page. As Bob will confirm, a more Internet savvy friend of his that he consulted insisted a “Contact” page was of greater importance and that merging the two functions (as currently seen at the site), was the best compromise.

    You might find WordPress to be a pretty good platform to work with. That’s what this site and a lot of others are built on.

  46. Keith says:
    February 8, 2013 at 12:16 am  (Quote)

    Publius: Obviously the one we want was Lord Stowell, born in 1745.

    Interesting. I hadn’t made the connection. I suspect that I am related to that Lord Stowell on my mothers side, but I have no real evidence; I haven’t traced her line back that far (yet), but I’m pretty sure I’ll get there. I haven’t yet discovered when my Grandfather Scott’s ancestors came to America.

  47. Dave B. says:
    February 8, 2013 at 12:32 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    This is on my short list for first challenge, but I thought I might try something easier just to get the mechanism worked out.

    sfjeff: Before arguing anything else, Bob needs to establish how he can refute Lupin’s assertion.

    I think that one’s going to be easy for him. He doesn’t try to refute it. In Chapter 10 of his book he says
    “Be clear that I do not intend to claim Emer de Vattel devised the term…I argue that John Jay attached Vattel’s definition for natives and indigenes to his term.”
    That’s the one he’s going to have a hard time proving. And why he goes on about how pervasive Vattel’s influence is, and then tries to argue that this influence was so minimal that John Jay’s table talk was sufficient to corrupt the translator of the 1797 edition, well, that’s another story.

  48. C. Stanton says:
    February 8, 2013 at 12:49 am  (Quote)

    A quick comment directed at Dr. Conspiracy.

    To your undeniable credit, you have made a more than respectable effort towards providing Bob Gard with a relatively unfettered online forum where his work can be discussed at length; at least by those who are taking the time to follow it in detail.

    I cannot tell you how delightful it is to see someone from the opposite team demonstrate an unquestionable dedication to wholesome and courteous debate.

    You are to be commended in no uncertain terms. Thank you.

  49. C. Stanton says:
    February 8, 2013 at 1:06 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: This is on my short list for first challenge, but I thought I might try something easier just to get the mechanism worked out.

    Doc,

    You’re batting a thousand here. May I suggest that this thread merely be “Bob Gard: Proof “beyond a reasonable doubt”, part deux?

    Let this be the escape valve for continued debate but, please, consider having a precise starting line (in an entirely new thread or, more properly, parallel set of threads), where your challenge to Bob—with links to preexisting material—sets the stage for an unmistakable back-and-forth exchange between the two of you, starting at an easily recognized “square one”; something that this thread simply does not have.

    For what it’s worth, I see no harm in letting this thread continue to play out as its overall tenor has begun to settle into a less acrimonious and far more productive groove. If anything, hats off to you for that alone.

    Be that as it may, I defer to your judgement as yours has has been an unexpected paragon of virtue in an otherwise cluttered and topsy-turvy bit of turf.

  50. Rickey says:
    February 8, 2013 at 1:15 am  (Quote)

    Scientist: Swiss citiizenship laws require ONE citizen parent.No country that I am aware of (and I have looked at quite a few) requires TWO. The plural form includes the singular- “Parents must pick up their children by 5PM” does not mean both parents must show up.I would call this the Achilles heel of the Donofrio/Apuzzo/Gard theories, except that implies but a single weak spot and they have more weak spots than Swiss cheese has holes (excuse the Vattelist pun).

    The other Achilles’ heel is that the founders all were familiar with jus soli and they understood that it was the controlling factor in determining who was a natural born subject. John Jay was a highly-educated lawyer who had clerked for one of the best-known law instructors in New York, so he was thoroughly familiar with English law.

    One would expect that if the founders intended to create a different definition for natural born citizen than the definition for natural born subject with which they were familiar, there would be an unambiguous written record of it. Yet there is nothing. The reason why “natural born citizen” is not defined in the Constitution is because everyone at that time knew what it meant – exactly the same thing which “natural born subject” meant.

  52. Jim says:
    February 8, 2013 at 9:36 am  (Quote)

    Wonder how long the book would be if you removed all the unsupported opinions by Bob and only had supported facts (even if he does misinterpret those facts).

  53. Reality Check says:
    February 8, 2013 at 9:39 am  (Quote)

    Note to Bob Gard…

    This was satire. I dawned on me that he might just take me seriously.

    Reality Check:
    I was going to help Bob Gard post photos in the other thread so I will post the directions here. The first thing he should do is connect his computer directly to the router then disable all firewall and antivirus software. Do that for a week then I will provide step 2 for the small sum of $12.95.

  54. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 8, 2013 at 9:55 am  (Quote)

    I have another entire article set for this purpose.

    C. Stanton: Let this be the escape valve for continued debate but, please, consider having a precise starting line (in an entirely new thread or, more properly, parallel set of threads), where your challenge to Bob—with links to preexisting material—sets the stage for an unmistakable back-and-forth exchange between the two of you, starting at an easily recognized “square one”; something that this thread simply does not have.

  55. JPotter says:
    February 8, 2013 at 9:58 am  (Quote)

    Reality Check: I dawned on me that he might just take me seriously.

    Check’s in the mail 😉

  56. Lupin says:
    February 8, 2013 at 10:04 am  (Quote)

    The short bullet point list is that Vattel doesn’t help the birther cause because (a) his use of the group plural for “parens”, (b) the fact that “parens” means relatives and not parents, (c) the fact that he acknowledges that England uses jus soli which is OK in his book, and (d) the lack of compelling evidence that his French-language terms correctly translate into your terminology.

    Even assuming (d) above, Obama would still be considered a Swiss indigene by Vattel because of (a) to (c) (but not ruling out that he would be considered a British one in England). This is pretty much unarguable.

    I notice that no birther advocate in the very long thread above has actually responded to my points.

  57. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 8, 2013 at 10:05 am  (Quote)

    It would be quite long. There are lots of illustrations from old dictionaries and editions of Vattel.

    Jim: Wonder how long the book would be if you removed all the unsupported opinions by Bob and only had supported facts (even if he does misinterpret those facts).

  58. Lupin says:
    February 8, 2013 at 10:08 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: It would be quite long. There are lots of illustrations from old dictionaries and editions of Vattel.

    Jim: Wonder how long the book would be if you removed all the unsupported opinions by Bob and only had supported facts (even if he does misinterpret those facts).

    I find it bewildering that someone would write so much about a foreign work without taking the relatively easy step of consulting foreign experts.

    My alma mater, the Sorbonne, would have gladly out him in touch with a specialist on the matter, had he been properly introduced.

  59. JPotter says:
    February 8, 2013 at 10:36 am  (Quote)

    They wouldn’t have given him the answer that he wanted. He blatantly stated in the other thread that he devised his ‘unique analysis’ and then selected material that could be twisted—er, interpreted, to support it.

    He’s engaged in persuasive writing (to put it generously), and intent on refuting accepted, established scholarship (which has refused his preferred viewpoint) rather than traditional, academic inquiry.

    He was a pleasant surprise to see a birfer openly acknowledge the nature of their approach, rather than having to point it out to them!

  60. Arthur says:
    February 8, 2013 at 10:47 am  (Quote)

    Lupin: My alma mater, the Sorbonne, would have gladly out him in touch with a specialist on the matter, had he been properly introduced.

    But then he wouldn’t have gotten the evidence he wanted. Know you nothing of psyontific method?

  61. donna says:
    February 8, 2013 at 10:55 am  (Quote)

    Lupin: I notice that no birther advocate in the very long thread above has actually responded to my points.

    quelle surprise!!!

    ça m’étonne!!!!!

  62. Paper says:
    February 8, 2013 at 11:47 am  (Quote)

    Re: Scientist and Publius on the other thread viz. publishing

    Yes, indeed, part of knowing your market is timing, and much of the moment has passed, true enough.

    The fiction idea would be good, if successful and especially if he ended up with a blockbuster movie, because then Gard could use the money and name recognition to publicize his theories and research for free. Thus, as I believe Gard is a true believer, he wouldn’t have to sell his soul to a lesser market than he thinks he deserves.

    Given his theories and the nature of his work, he is doomed to a lesser market if he wants to use capitalism to achieve his goal of having Americans at large read his work and decide for themselves. There is the basic conflict, a mismatch between the actual quality of his work and the quality he perceives it to have, and the (paying) audience he thinks it deserves.

    He seems to believe it to be worthy of a larger market, and also believes in capitalism. However, there is no such larger market for this kind of work, even if he re-edits it (which I gather is happening). Even at the height of this market, Corsi apparently needed his publisher to buy up books to keep the game going.

    If he wants Americans at large to read his work and decide for themselves, that goal is herculean if he wants to achieve it through the marketplace. Well, more herculean.

    I’m not so much giving marketing/publishing advice, as exploring the inherent conflict I perceive in Gard’s endeavor. Money vs. mission. A normal, typical conflict, but one heightened by the mismatch I perceive in his wanting to beat the high brow culture (of scholarship and the like) at its own game but without actually playing that game as it exists. He seems to want to prove that his game is better.

    Now, this kind of rumination is interesting to me, but I’m not pushing it out there as psychoanalysis. I’m just very interested in the (sincere) self-sabotage of this kind of dilettantism. I am interested in the borders between successful individual initiative (whether worthwhile at large or selfishly predatory, or both), unsuccessful but nonetheless worthwhile initiative, and chip-on-the-shoulder initiative.

    Of course, that may very well be because these are the behaviors I see in my family, and I had to find my way into adulthood through that thicket. So, grain of salt, and all that…

  63. Bob Gard says:
    February 8, 2013 at 12:51 pm  (Quote)

    Publius: The problem is that there are other gaps, and those gaps aren’t a miniscule chance. They’re huge.

    Here’s just one. London in the 1790s was a city of a million people. England is so close to France that to date, more than 800 people have made the crossing by swimming. Heck, the French used to rule England. Plenty of Englishmen speak French.

    You suppose that out of a million Londoners, Sir WIlliam Scott was the one who translated the 1797 edition of Vattel. But you have no documentary evidence that this is the case. His name is not listed as translator in the book, for example; nor do you have a genuine historical letter that pinpoints that he translated the work. It’s just a hunch.

    Here’s where so many writers and speculators on this kind of thing get tripped up. They imagine that because some thing might have happened, that’s good evidence that it did happen. That just isn’t the case.

    It’s just speculation. Speculation doesn’t equal proof.

    And against your speculation, there’s a mountain of real evidence: Quotes from real legal authorities. Quotes from historical authorities. Decisions in actual court cases, that went back and reviewed the meaning of such terms.

    This is why I earlier referred to your claims, in general, as being “doomed.”

    First, I want to answer two former comments I didn’t get a chance to because the thread was cut off:

    My editor really likes your form of debate. He wanted me to accept your calling my arrests detentions:

    I for one haven’t questioned Bob’s stories of his adventures in other countries. I would note that he doesn’t seem to have been truly what I would call arrested or at least booked into prison in the USSR, but rather detained for fairly lengthy periods of time (e.g., all day). The whole Soviet experience sounds quite plausible to me.

    I have no problem with it, but I want to inform you of what I sent to him as a response:

    Detention means holding in custody. Arrest means to take or keep in custody. Why should I back down? Because they want to change the dictionaries? Neither means tried, convicted or sentenced. I did not claim that my arrests went to the next level. The actions that were closer to their obvious connotative meaning of detention–no clear line between arrest and detention in the denotative sense–occurred at the checkpoint, the search of our vehicle and the forcing us to go in custody to the Intourist campground not on our itinerary without letting us know why till we got there. The full day of interrogation with a written confession and the day of the arrest warrant are certainly arrests in anyone’s connotative terminology, or should be. If they choose to pick “detentions,” then they should be aware that detention in Russia at that time could mean no official arrest and never being heard of again. People too often merge their understanding of American processes with foreign processes.

    If they want to go on to nitpick [sorry—I’ll try not to use such words with you in the future] my abduction by the PLO and call it a detention, let them go right ahead. In this section of Beirut almost everyone was armed with repeating rifles and occasionally shot people on the spot. My life was on the line, no doubt about that. My “escorts” were the detainers, interrogators, judges and executioners.

    To my knowledge, arrest has never had a time limit on it. If an officer takes you into custody, you are arrested, even if he changes his mind and decides not to book you. I will continue to say I was arrested, but I have no problem with your saying I was detained.

  64. Arthur says:
    February 8, 2013 at 12:56 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: I will continue to say I was arrested, but I have no problem with your saying I was detained.

    Whatever feeds your life-lie, Bob. To hell with the truth–we all just want you to feel good about yourself. XXOO

  65. Publius says:
    February 8, 2013 at 1:02 pm  (Quote)

    I think that certainly your experience goes far beyond any kind of encounter that a law-abiding citizen would normally have with police here in the United States, or in any Western European country, for that matter. And on second thought, “arrest” might be a better word for it, particularly given that you were basically interrogated for an entire day.

    I suppose my main point was that it was not the kind of incident in which you were actually imprisoned. I’m not surprised by this kind of police encounter by a Western tourist with Soviet police in that era. But I really don’t have a big problem with you describing it as an “arrest.”

  66. Dave B. says:
    February 8, 2013 at 1:05 pm  (Quote)

    Bob, are these digressions doing anything to further your argument?

  67. Bob Gard says:
    February 8, 2013 at 1:07 pm  (Quote)

    Publius: You might find WordPress to be a pretty good platform to work with. That’s what this site and a lot of others are built on.

    Now for my answer to your way of explaining mutually exclusive citizenship in the last thread. I applaud you for giving me your explanation. No one else attempted. And no one has answered my question–did trial by jury start in England? I suggest that the contributors may be afraid to answer based on their memories. So many accused me of being ignorant concerning Blackstone yet none seem to know where to look for the section in Blackstone’s Commentaries that exposes the truth, just one of several revealing references in history.

    If your explanation of mutually exclusive citizenship is correct, then I must pose further questions: Our government did not endorse the right of our citizens to expatriate? Our president was really an hereditary monarch who owned our allegiance? Our citizens plead allegiance to the President? The Naturalization Act of 1790 was not repealed and replaced by the one of 1795, which struck natural-born citizens.I don’t remember any of these things being a part of American history, yet that’s the way it would have had to be if we had copied any more than the native-born part in terms of jus soli of natural-born subject.

  68. Dave B. says:
    February 8, 2013 at 1:13 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: And no one has answered my question–did trial by jury start in England?

    Bob, does insisting on an answer to that question make your argument more persuasive?

  69. slash2k says:
    February 8, 2013 at 1:15 pm  (Quote)

    See, you’re making logical leaps again. A natural-born subject owes allegiance to the king; a natural-born citizen owes allegiance to the country. You don’t need to have a hereditary monarchy or swear allegiance to a particular person to adopt the notion of “born within the allegiance” so I don’t understand why you think “that’s the way it would have had to be.”

  70. slash2k says:
    February 8, 2013 at 1:21 pm  (Quote)

    No, trial by jury did not start in England, although it was enshrined in the law there earlier and more completely than in most of the rest of Europe. What has that got to do with Obama?

  71. gorefan says:
    February 8, 2013 at 1:36 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: And no one has answered my question–did trial by jury start in England?

    Not true. From the previous thread:

    W. Kevin Vicklund February 6, 2013 at 3:49 pm#

    By the way, where was trial by jury started?

    The earliest references in the “Western world” that I know of are to Greece, but I would not presume that to be the origin of trial by jury without a bit more exhaustive documentation of other cultures.

  72. Scientist says:
    February 8, 2013 at 1:37 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: To my knowledge, arrest has never had a time limit on it. If an officer takes you into custody, you are arrested, even if he changes his mind and decides not to book you. I will continue to say I was arrested, but I have no problem with your saying I was detained.

    Since I called you out on this, I will respond. Whatever some dictionaries might say, in common usage, arrest implies that charges were filed (which of course doesn’t preclude them being dropped later). When one sees a newspaper headline, “3 Arrested in Drug Bust” it is typically followed by a list of charges. A US citizen actually arrested and charged in the Soviet Union would have definitely involved the US Embassy and the State Dept. back in the US and would have been covered in the press, as such events carried a risk of developing into international incidenst. A detention and release without charges probably would not have as yours did not.

    In this discussion a precise use of words is no trivial matter. For example, whether “parents” invariably mean BOTH parents or could mean one or both, as in “Parents must pick up their children by 5 PM” or could even mean ancestors is critical to understanding the phrase of Vattel that your entire “case” (such as it is) hangs on.

  73. Bob Gard says:
    February 8, 2013 at 1:38 pm  (Quote)

    Publius: The problem is that there are other gaps, and those gaps aren’t a miniscule chance. They’re huge.

    Here’s just one. London in the 1790s was a city of a million people. England is so close to France that to date, more than 800 people have made the crossing by swimming. Heck, the French used to rule England. Plenty of Englishmen speak French.

    You suppose that out of a million Londoners, Sir WIlliam Scott was the one who translated the 1797 edition of Vattel. But you have no documentary evidence that this is the case. His name is not listed as translator in the book, for example; nor do you have a genuine historical letter that pinpoints that he translated the work. It’s just a hunch.

    Here’s where so many writers and speculators on this kind of thing get tripped up. They imagine that because some thing might have happened, that’s good evidence that it did happen. That just isn’t the case.

    It’s just speculation. Speculation doesn’t equal proof.

    And against your speculation, there’s a mountain of real evidence: Quotes from real legal authorities. Quotes from historical authorities. Decisions in actual court cases, that went back and reviewed the meaning of such terms.

    This is why I earlier referred to your claims, in general, as being “doomed.”

    It’s far from a hunch. Dr. Conspiracy will eventually get around to that section. It is impossible to do it justice in a short reply but here’s my attempt. Chitty edited a new edition in 1834 that exposed three contributors to the 1797 edition by name: Scott, Nichol, and Robinson. The last two worked under the direction of Scott. In the introduction to that edition were many clues that pointed to Scott as the secret editor of the 1797 edition. Then I made comparisons and located places in the 1797 that had been altered to conform with Scott’s terminology in Brtish cases in the High Court of Admiralty, such as using the word “settlement” instead of domicile and the rewording of what wood items were to be considered artifacts of war legitimately classified as contraband. Another clue was the citing incorrectly of a certain section of the Le Droit des Genes that could only have been done using the 1775 Amsterdam edition, which was the one that Scott and Jefferson used. You all have scoffed at the next one. Scott was the same kind of incredible translator of French to English that Jefferson and Nugent were. He never, never would have translated indigenes to natural-born citizens unless they meant the same thing. That’s where the face-to-face meetings between Jay and him came into play.

  74. gorefan says:
    February 8, 2013 at 1:44 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: It’s far from a hunch.

    When did Jay explain his definition of natural born to the Framers? When did the Framers explain their change of the definition of “natural born” to the rest of the country?

  75. Bob Gard says:
    February 8, 2013 at 1:47 pm  (Quote)

    donna:
    Bob Gard:

    if you want to start with affirmative action, why don’t we begin with athletes?

    then we can move on to legacy acceptances and the leg up those who graduate from prestigious private schools receive

    and now, according to conservative bill bennett, MEN are receiving affirmative action (“a finger on the scale”) – women are blowing them away based on the applications alone

    According to historian David Oshinsky, on writing about Jonas Salk, “Most of the surrounding medical schools (Cornell, Columbia, Pennsylvania, and Yale) had rigid quotas in place. In 1935 Yale accepted 76 applicants from a pool of 501. About 200 of those applicants were Jewish and only five got in.” He notes that the dean’s instructions were remarkably precise: “Never admit more than five Jews, take only two Italian Catholics, and take no blacks at all.” As a result, Oshinsky added, “Jonas Salk and hundreds like him” enrolled in New York University instead.

    Affirmative action is unconstitutional. No need to discuss fairness. No need to discuss how it helps its recipients. If America wanted it, America should have passed a constitutional amendment. This was one of the worst examples of how Congress and the Supreme Court trashed our Constitution. Please readThomas Sowell’s Affirmative Action Around the World. You will then know my beliefs. I disagree with him on only two minor points in the entire book. By the way, Sowell thinks affirmative action does more harm than good.

  76. Publius says:
    February 8, 2013 at 1:53 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: If your explanation of mutually exclusive citizenship is correct, then I must pose further questions: Our government did not endorse the right of our citizens to expatriate? Our president was really an hereditary monarch who owned our allegiance? Our citizens plead allegiance to the President? The Naturalization Act of 1790 was not repealed and replaced by the one of 1795, which struck natural-born citizens.I don’t remember any of these things being a part of American history, yet that’s the way it would have had to be if we had copied any more than the native-born part in terms of jus soli of natural-born subject.

    As I recall, our early government actually was not keen on American citizens expatriating. It was rather a hypocritical position: they said that others had the right to expatriate from their own countries, immigrate into the US, and become American citizens, but were not so generous with the right of our own citizens to do the same. Not that the position really matters. You could certainly have the same definition of what constitutes a natural born citizen (or subject) in the first place, and yet decide to have a completely different policy on expatriation.

    And no, our President was obviously not a monarch. But as someone has already pointed out, a citizen is different from a subject in that the citizen owes allegiance to his country, to the whole body of his fellow citizens, where the subject owes allegiance to a king. In fact, since the first complaint made after the Constitution was ratified was that our citizens didn’t have the same rights that were guaranteed to the subjects of Great Britain, that redirection of allegiance is probably the important difference between a citizen and a subject.

    Your point, if I understand it, is that the following things are impossible if we adopted a jus soli rule for determining who was a natural born citizen:

    * It is impossible that we could have allowed expatriation. But as I’ve already stated, that’s not the case. It’s perfectly possible to take a law, or a model, for citizenship, and then strike out only the rule that says people can’t expatriate. And that in fact is what we did, although, as I’ve mentioned, not at first and only reluctantly.

    * You seem to maintain that our adopting jus soli was impossible if we did not swear allegiance to our President as a monarch. Again, a jus soli rule in no way depends on monarchy, and as mentioned the real difference between citizen and subject is that whereas the subject owes his allegiance to his king, the citizen owes his allegiance to his country and to his fellow citizens.

    * You seem to maintain that it would be impossible that the Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed and replaced by the one of 1795, if we had a jus soli rule for citizenship. But neither act defined the status of persons born on US soil. And in fact, the 1790 Act could well in itself evidence that we had adopted jus soli. Why? Because the status of persons born overseas to natives was always just a little bit unclear under the jus soli rule. The Act made no attempt to clarify the status of those born on US soil, only those born to US citizens overseas.

    The major alternative to jus soli is jus sanguinis. If we had adopted that rule, there really would’ve been no need to clarify the status of children born to US citizens overseas. They would’ve clearly and automatically been natural born citizens.

    Unless, of course, you adopt a rule such as it taking both two citizen parents and birth on US soil to make a natural born citizen. But as others have pointed out, even Vattel himself doesn’t seem to provide a definition quite that strict. And in any event, there seems to be absolutely nothing to indicate that the Framers of the Constitution or those who ratified it understood “natural born citizen” to mean anything other than what “natural born subject” had always meant, except for the difference between subject and citizen.

  77. Dave B. says:
    February 8, 2013 at 1:54 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: Chitty edited a new edition in 1834 that exposed three contributors to the 1797 edition by name: Scott, Nichol, and Robinson.

    Bob, you quote from Chitty’s “Preface to the Present Edition”:
    “Many years have elapsed since the original work was published, long before the invaluable decisions of Sir William Scott, Sir C. Robinson, and Sir John Nichol, and other eminent Judges in the Courts of Admiralty, and Prize and other Courts; and the last edition, upon which any care was bestowed, was published in A. D. 1797; since which time, and especially during the last general war, many most important rules respecting the Law of Nations were established.”
    Why do you presume that that identifies Scott, Robinson and Nichol (sic) as editors of the 1797 edition? Now all I have to go on is your reference there, but from that citation, it’s much more likely that Chitty is referring to their work as Admiralty Judges. If that’s the reference you choose to represent your efforts at proving your argument, you don’t have much of an argument. Do you have something more compelling?

  78. Dave B. says:
    February 8, 2013 at 1:57 pm  (Quote)

    Tell that to General Jedi Pauly, who is obviously neither a General nor a Jedi.

    Publius: And no, our President was obviously not a monarch.

  79. slash2k says:
    February 8, 2013 at 1:58 pm  (Quote)

    “Never admit more than five Jews, take only two Italian Catholics, and take no blacks at all” is of course so much fairer and more reasonable and more *American* and helped so many more people, right?

    Wrong.

  80. Scientist says:
    February 8, 2013 at 1:58 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: He never, never would have translated indigenes to natural-born citizens unless they meant the same thing

    They do NOT mean the same thing. French for natural born citizen is “Citoyen de naissance”.

    The Government of Canada publishes all documents in English and French. This document discusses the Canadian Citizenship Act.

    Here is the English version http://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp445-e.htm

    I draw your attention to B. Natural-Born Citizens

    Here is the French version http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp445-f.htm

    I draw your attention to B. Citoyens de naissance

    That is the correct, official translation. Go complain to Ottawa if you don’t like it.

  81. W. Kevin Vicklund says:
    February 8, 2013 at 2:01 pm  (Quote)

    Sorry, Doc, for what I am about to type.

    Bob Gard: Now for my answer to your way of explaining mutually exclusive citizenship in the last thread. I applaud you for giving me your explanation. No one else attempted.

    You lying sack of shit, I and several others explained why “mutually exclusive citizenship” wasn’t even a problem. I even pointed this out a second time, so you have no excuse.

    And no one has answered my question–did trial by jury start in England?

    Again, you lying sack of shit, I answered the question. The earliest documentation I could find was Ancient Greece. But there were loads of non-“Western” cultures that that survey didn’t even cover. But we can safely say that trial by jury predates any concept of England as a nation. And others questioned your whether you had a specific definition in mind, as that could modify the answer.

  82. W. Kevin Vicklund says:
    February 8, 2013 at 2:04 pm  (Quote)

    The cleaned up version of what I just typed.

    Bob Gard: Now for my answer to your way of explaining mutually exclusive citizenship in the last thread. I applaud you for giving me your explanation. No one else attempted.

    You lying sack of [redacted], I and several others explained why “mutually exclusive citizenship” wasn’t even a problem. I even pointed this out a second time, so you have no excuse.

    And no one has answered my question–did trial by jury start in England?

    Again, you lying sack of [redacted], I answered the question. The earliest documentation I could find was Ancient Greece. But there were loads of non-”Western” cultures that that survey didn’t even cover. But we can safely say that trial by jury predates any concept of England as a nation. And others questioned your whether you had a specific definition in mind, as that could modify the answer.

  83. gorefan says:
    February 8, 2013 at 2:14 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: No one else attempted. And no one has answered my question–did trial by jury start in England? I suggest that the contributors may be afraid to answer based on their memories.

    Bob, you are a hypocrite.

    You have been asked repeatedly to explain the why prominent Founders contradict your pet theory. You have refused repeatedly to answer those questions.

    I understand why you are afraid to discuss the Founder’s words. Afterall you have a book to sell and being honest might be bad for business.

    Your buddy Stanton said he thought that conservatism in America was just “Conservatism.inc”, who knew he was talking about you.

  84. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 8, 2013 at 2:24 pm  (Quote)

    I have started the debate:

    Bob is invited to comment via email (or the site’s Contact form).
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/02/the-great-debate/#comment-246926

  85. Bob Gard says:
    February 8, 2013 at 2:26 pm  (Quote)

    Whatever4:
    Aieeee! You closed the previous thread as I was commenting, and I lost the post. No problem.

    Mr. Gard: please clear this up for me. You said: “I did have a 4.0 in high school and I was denied a partial scholarship due to my gender and race to the six Ivy League universities I applied to. ”

    If you were 13 in 1960, then you would have been applying to colleges around 1965. There weren’t 6 Ivy League schools that accepted women until the 1970s. There are 8 IvyLeague colleges. Princeton and Yale didn’t admit women until 1969. Harvard and Brown had separate women’s colleges that merged with the Ivy college in 1970 and 1971. Dartmouth first admitted women in 1972. Columbia College admitted women in 1983. Penn and Cornell admitted women from very early in their histories.

    So you either applied in the 1970s, are stretching the definition of Ivy League, or are mistaken in your memory. My experience with scholarships is also a bit different. We applied to the college separately for admission and aid. Aid discussions came after acceptance. Were you actually accepted to 6 Ivies then turned down for aid?

    Please clear these questions up as they certainly reflect on your veracity. (Voracity for AFU fans. )

    </blockquote
    Definitely a fair question. Is your source Wikipedia? Give me some time to try to find the original information in my files. If your information is true, then my memory on the female favoritism for Princeton, Harvard and Yale is fautly. I must change my language in the future. It bothers me because I have had stuck in my mind all these years that one recruiter expressed bitterness about being forced to admit a woman with an exceptionally low grade-point average.

    Part of the problem seems to be that I am calling universities Ivy League that weren't. I did apply to Princeton, Harvard and Yale. The others I applied to were Stanford, MIT and CIT. I always thought they were Ivy League. I had picked these six because of their reputation. I wanted to gain entrance to CIT or MIT the most because I had dreams of being a mathematician. Perhaps you can tell me if they didn't admit women either, then I'd would be more embarrassed about my faulty memory. If all did not admit women, my statement would be untrue as to the fact that gender figured into the list. Even one university favoring women would keep the integrity of the statement except for the 6 Ivy League part. I thought the others were considered Ivy League. I guess I should have verified. Math was my love. I wasn't all that concerned with Ivy League.

    Therefore, if gender were a part of the affirmative action program for Standford, MIT and CIT, then optimally I should restructure my statement to " I was denied a partial scholarship to 3 Ivy League Universities on skin color and 3 (what?) on skin color and gender." If you read The-Constitutionist.com, I say that I had applied to CIT. I also stated that other recruiters added additional reasons.

    By the way, have you ever asked Obama about the particulars of his education?

  86. gorefan says:
    February 8, 2013 at 2:29 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: I have started the debate

    With regards to your first question:

    In 1774, the Continental Congress sent to Parliament the “Declaration and Resolves” in which the Congress declared;

    “Resolved, N. C. D. 2. That our ancestors, who first settled these colonies, were at the time of their emigration from the mother country, entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities of free and natural-born subjects, within the realm of England.”

    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch1s1.html

    So Bob knows that the Founders considered themselves “natural-born subjects”.

  87. Welsh Dragon says:
    February 8, 2013 at 2:33 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: Our government did not endorse the right of our citizens to expatriate?

    Well, despite a lot of earlier rhetoric it didn’t until 1868.

  88. Scientist says:
    February 8, 2013 at 2:35 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: I wanted to gain entrance to CIT or MIT the most because I had dreams of being a mathematician

    If by CIT you mean the California Institute of Technology, it is not and never has been called CIT, but always and only Cal Tech. So your memory does have some gaps.

    Now I have shown you above proof that natural born citizen = citoyen de naissance
    So your memory regarding French-English translation is faulty as well.

  89. MattR says:
    February 8, 2013 at 2:36 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: Part of the problem seems to be that I am calling universities Ivy League that weren’t. I did apply to Princeton, Harvard and Yale. The others I applied to were Stanford, MIT and CIT. I always thought they were Ivy League

    What a perfect example to illustrate the quality of your scholarship.

  90. Welsh Dragon says:
    February 8, 2013 at 2:38 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: Scott was the same kind of incredible translator of French to English that Jefferson and Nugent were.

    Can you point to one book that Scott is acknowledged to have translated from French? I can’t find one.

    Off the top of my head I can’t think of one translated by Jefferson either but I haven’t looked.

  91. Rickey says:
    February 8, 2013 at 2:39 pm  (Quote)

    gorefan: When did Jay explain his definition of natural born to the Framers?When did the Framers explain their change of the definition of “natural born” to the rest of the country?

    Good questions. Changing the definition of “natural born” and not telling anyone about it would be akin to changing the voting age but keeping the new voting age a secret.

  92. Dave B. says:
    February 8, 2013 at 2:42 pm  (Quote)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-_Ql0fN0bA

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I have started the debate:

    Bob is invited to comment via email (or the site’s Contact form).
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/02/the-great-debate/#comment-246926

  93. gorefan says:
    February 8, 2013 at 2:46 pm  (Quote)

    Rickey: Good questions.

    I won’t hold my breath waiting for an answer. Bob is not a particularly honest researcher.

  94. ballantine says:
    February 8, 2013 at 2:47 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: Now for my answer to your way of explaining mutually exclusive citizenship in the last thread. I applaud you for giving me your explanation. No one else attempted. And no one has answered my question–did trial by jury start in England? I suggest that the contributors may be afraid to answer based on their memories. So many accused me of being ignorant concerning Blackstone yet none seem to know where to look for the section in Blackstone’s Commentaries that exposes the truth, just one of several revealing references in history.

    If your explanation of mutually exclusive citizenship is correct, then I must pose further questions: Our government did not endorse the right of our citizens to expatriate? Our president was really an hereditary monarch who owned our allegiance?Our citizens plead allegiance to the President? The Naturalization Act of 1790 was not repealed and replaced by the one of 1795, which struck natural-born citizens.I don’t remember any of these things being a part of American history, yet that’s the way it would have had to be if we had copied any more than the native-born part in terms of jus soli of natural-born subject.

    Who cares where jury trials started. We followed the model that in place in England with respect to jury trial and grand juries. Before the codification of the rules of Criminal Procedure, we generally followed the common law rules. You think you are smarter than everyone who studied law and had to learn a ton of old English law, but if you can’t admit that most of our traditional law comes from England you are simply an ignorant person. In fact, Blackstone today would still provide a good understanding of much of American law. And if you don’t know that much, if not most, of our Constitution adopted English law, again, you have no business posting about Constitutional Law. Please, tell me which provisions of the Bill of Rights were and were not based upon English law. Is that too hard for you?

    The second paragraph above is just gibberish. The actual facts is that we substituted allegiance to the collective body of citizens, i.e., our nation, for allegiance to the crown. No one ever said allegiance was to the President. The United States debated whether we had the right to expatriate without the consent of congress for 80 years after our Founding finally declaring it only 2 years before England did. Between the war of 1812 and 1870, the United States and England were generally on the same page both recognizing a partial right to expatriate. You have exposed another topic you know nothing about.

    Your statements about naturalization acts make no sense at all. Do you realize that these acts were coping English statutes. Again, we have shown that native-born and natural born were conflated by pretty much everyone in the founding period and natural born subject and natural born citizen were as well. You still have provided no evidence to the contrary, just silly conjecture. This is getting embarrassing.

  95. Dave B. says:
    February 8, 2013 at 2:48 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: Definitely a fair question. Is your source Wikipedia? Give me some time to try to find the original information in my files.

    Bob, I think you’re going to have your hands full debating with Doc.

    Bob Gard: By the way, have you ever asked Obama about the particulars of his education?

    I repeat: I think you’re going to have your hands full with Doc.

  96. W. Kevin Vicklund says:
    February 8, 2013 at 2:52 pm  (Quote)

    CIT may refer to Carnegie Institute of Technology, now known as Carnegie Mellon University, where I attended college. Tufts and MIT are its top two rivals, particularly in math and science.I can’t remember when it merged with Margaret Morrison (is that the right name? the women’s school)

    Ah, back from some quick research. It was in 1964 that CIT merged with the Mellon Institute of Industrial Research to become Carnegie-Mellon University (the hyphen was dropped while I was applying for enrollment). The womens college, Margaret Morrison Carnegie College, wasn’t closed until 1973. However, there was coed enrollment before 1964.

  97. Publius says:
    February 8, 2013 at 2:59 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: It’s far from a hunch. Dr. Conspiracy will eventually get around to that section. It is impossible to do it justice in a short reply but here’s my attempt. Chitty edited a new edition in 1834 that exposed three contributors to the 1797 edition by name: Scott, Nichol, and Robinson. The last two worked under the direction of Scott. In the introduction to that edition were many clues that pointed to Scott as the secret editor of the 1797 edition. Then I made comparisons and located places in the 1797 that had been altered to conform with Scott’s terminology in Brtish cases in the High Court of Admiralty, such as using the word “settlement” instead of domicile and the rewording of what wood items were to be considered artifacts of war legitimately classified as contraband. Another clue was the citing incorrectly of a certain section of the Le Droit des Genes that could only have been done using the 1775 Amsterdam edition, which was the one that Scott and Jefferson used. You all have scoffed at the next one. Scott was the same kind of incredible translator of French to English that Jefferson and Nugent were. He never, never would have translated indigenes to natural-born citizens unless they meant the same thing. That’s where the face-to-face meetings between Jay and him came into play.

    Um… Bob, I’m sorry, but I’m afraid this is looking like a really significant “fail” as well.

    The use of a particular word (like “settlement”) is almost useless. Anyone can use the word “settlement.” Anyone else could’ve used the 1775 Amsterdam edition as well. ANYBODY. At best, that might be a nugget of supporting evidence to accompany some hard documentary evidence.

    I don’t have immediate access to Chitty’s 1834 edition of Vattel. However, I do have access (online) to an 1844 edition that contains the exact same Preface.

    You hint at documentary evidence that would establish that Scott edited the 1797 edition. That’s the kind of thing I referred to earlier. Specifically, what you need is something along the lines of:

    “In the preparation of this edition, I corresponded with Sir William Scott, Lord Stowell, who informed me that he had been the main translator and editor of the 1797 translation. Under his direction worked two other translators, Nichol and Robinson. The final translation was edited and approved by Lord Stowell himself… J. Chitty, November, 1833”

    That would establish the point.

    Instead, here’s what you actually appear to have, from Chitty’s Preface:

    “Many years have elapsed since the original work was published, long before the invaluable decisions of Sir William Scott, Sir C. Robinson, and Sir John Nichol, and other eminent Judges in the Courts of Admiralty, and Prize and other Courts; and the last edition, upon which any care was bestowed, was published in A. D. 1797; since which time, and especially during the last general war, many most important rules respecting the Law of Nations were established. The object of the present Editor, has therefore, been to collect and condense, in numerous notes, the modern rules and decisions, and to fortify the positions in the text by references to other authors of eminence, and by which he hopes that this edition will be found of more practical utility…”

    And the Preface is signed “J. CHITTY, Chambers, 6, Chancery Lane, November, 1833.”

    In other words, this is the same preface as that to the first edition.

    It is abundantly clear from a plain English reading that Chitty is NOT saying that Sir William Scott translated the first edition with help from Sirs Robinson and Nichol. It is abundantly clear that he’s saying that the decisions rendered in courts by these particular judges – and by other judges – have helped clarify and further define the “Law of Nations.”

    Is this what you’re referring to? I can only imagine that it is.

    He even repeats this, in a footnote on page 166 of the 1844 edition:

    “The respected decisions which have given rise to discussion, have principally been in foreign Courts of Admiralty, or Prize Courts; and the law respecting them has been better settled by the decisions of Sir W. Scott and Sir J. Nichol, so universally respected, than any other period of history. By the long established doctrine in England…”

    Assuming that the passage above in Chitty’s Preface to the 1834 edition is indeed what you’re referring to, that would NOT be any evidence at all in support of your theory. It would, however, be some fairly good evidence of one of two things:

    Either you have gone to such great lengths to dig up “evidence” to support your pet theory that you were willing to grotesquely mangle texts to fit the mold, or you have misunderstood the text so badly that any reader would do very well to take anything else you wrote with a grain of salt.

  98. Arthur says:
    February 8, 2013 at 2:59 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: I must change my language in the future. It bothers me because I have had stuck in my mind all these years that one recruiter expressed bitterness about being forced to admit a woman with an exceptionally low grade-point average.

    Recruiters do not admit students, and they do not participate in the process of deciding who to admit. Recruiters gather students, encourage them to apply for admission, and sometimes help them along the admissions process. It would be a serious ethical breach for a recruiter to participate in the selection process. A recruiter might express regret that a student was admitted, but no recruiter has ever been “forced” to admit anyone.

    Your memory is playing tricks on you.

  99. Scientist says:
    February 8, 2013 at 3:05 pm  (Quote)

    Dave B.: Bob, I think you’re going to have your hands full debating with Doc

    Especially a guy who claims he applied to Cal Tech and desperately wanted to go, yet calls it CIT. Even a casual viewer of “The Big Bang Theory” knows it’s Cal Tech. But details don’t matter when one is a self-described great researcher. All that matters is Bob had a 4.0 and didn’t get in. Guess what? The high school my kids went to had a whole crop of 4.0 students with 1500-1600 SATs (old system) who didn’t get into the Ivy League. They were male and female, black, white and Asian. The selective schools look at much more than just grades and they admit openly that the students they turn down are extraordinarily qualified.

    As for Obama’s education, I have never had the opportunity to ask the President a question. If Bob is asking did being mixed race help him get in to good schools, I will guess yes. So did being from Hawaii (as schools strive for geographical diversity), having lived in Indonesia and playing basketball. Ask Occidental, Columbia and Harvard if they think they made a mistake.

  100. Publius says:
    February 8, 2013 at 3:07 pm  (Quote)

    W. Kevin Vicklund: The cleaned up version of what I just typed.

    I like the cleaned up version better. 🙂

  101. Publius says:
    February 8, 2013 at 3:09 pm  (Quote)

    Welsh Dragon: Well, despite a lot of earlier rhetoric it didn’t until 1868.

    Thanks for providing a date on that.

  102. Publius says:
    February 8, 2013 at 3:14 pm  (Quote)

    ballantine: Your statements about naturalization acts make no sense at all. Do you realize that these acts were coping English statutes.

    Thanks for an interesting post that brings some more info and points to light.

  103. Rickey says:
    February 8, 2013 at 3:16 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard:
    Definitely a fair question. Is your source Wikipedia? Give me some time to try to find the original information in my files. If your information is true, then my memory on the female favoritism for Princeton, Harvard and Yale is fautly. I must change my language in the future. It bothers me because I have had stuck in my mind all these years that one recruiter expressed bitterness about being forced to admit a woman with an exceptionally low grade-point average.

    The first female students at Princeton entered on September 6, 1969. 100 were freshmen and 48 were transfers. You were overseas at the time, if what has been published about you is accurate.

    http://www.capitalcentury.com/1969.html

    Stanford was co-ed, but affirmative action in its admissions policies did not go into effect until April, 1968, three years after you graduated high school. So when did you apply to Stanford? In 1965? In 1968? In 1972?

    You could clear this up by stating unambiguously when you applied to and were rejected by the six universities you have mentioned.

  104. Publius says:
    February 8, 2013 at 3:27 pm  (Quote)

    I’d like to contribute a resource to the debate.

    Earlier, dictionaries were mentioned.

    Bouvier’s Law Dictionary was written to address the need for an American dictionary of law. Originally published in 1839, it came well before the better-known Black’s.

    There doesn’t seem to be an online copy of the 1839 edition, but there is of the 6th edition, published in 1856. I have copied the 6 pages that would cover such terms as native, natural, natural born, and naturalization into one small file.

    I think the definitions given by Bouvier to some of these terms might be useful in debating the meaning of such terms in early America.

    Here’s the link:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/124565183/Native-and-Natural-from-Bouvier-s-Law-Dictionary-1856

    The full dictionary is of course available online for anyone who wants to confirm that these pages are indeed from the 1856 edition of Bouvier’s Law Dictionary. But since it’s a 45-meg download, I thought I’d make it a bit easier to get just those 6 pages.

  105. Bob Gard says:
    February 8, 2013 at 3:50 pm  (Quote)

    <

    Scientist: They do NOT mean the same thing.French for natural born citizen is “Citoyen de naissance”.

    The Government of Canada publishes all documents in English and French.This document discusses the Canadian Citizenship Act.

    Canada had no citizens at the time of the Constitution, only subjects. Citizens came long after. Find me one citation of “Citoyen de naissance” prior to the Constitution. I will cover that in Part II.

    Here is the English version http://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp445-e.htm

    I draw your attention to B. Natural-Born Citizens

    Here is the French version http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp445-f.htm

    I draw your attention to B. Citoyens de naissance

    That is the correct, official translation.Go complain to Ottawa if you don’t like it.

  106. gorefan says:
    February 8, 2013 at 3:50 pm  (Quote)

    Publius: Earlier, dictionaries were mentioned.

    Here is Cunningham’s law dictionary. This particular copy was digitized from John Adam’s personal library.

    http://archive.org/details/newcompletelawdi02cunn

  107. Publius says:
    February 8, 2013 at 3:57 pm  (Quote)

    There would’ve been many English-language law dictionaries prior to Bouvier’s. They would’ve all contained the term “natural born subject.” None of them would’ve contained the term “natural born citizen.” And I doubt that any of them contained the term “indigene.”

    It would be interesting, though, to see how those dictionaries defined “native.”

  108. Bob Gard says:
    February 8, 2013 at 4:00 pm  (Quote)

    Publius: Um… Bob, I’m sorry, but I’m afraid this is looking like a really significant “fail” as well.

    The use of a particular word (like “settlement”) is almost useless. Anyone can use the word “settlement.” Anyone else could’ve used the 1775 Amsterdam edition as well. ANYBODY. At best, that might be a nugget of supporting evidence to accompany some hard documentary evidence.

    I don’t have immediate access to Chitty’s 1834 edition of Vattel. However, I do have access (online) to an 1844 edition that contains the exact same Preface.

    You hint at documentary evidence that would establish that Scott edited the 1797 edition. That’s the kind of thing I referred to earlier. Specifically, what you need is something along the lines of:

    “In the preparation of this edition, I corresponded with Sir William Scott, Lord Stowell, who informed me that he had been the main translator and editor of the 1797 translation. Under his direction worked two other translators, Nichol and Robinson. The final translation was edited and approved by Lord Stowell himself… J. Chitty, November, 1833″

    That would establish the point.

    Instead, here’s what you actually appear to have, from Chitty’s Preface:

    “Many years have elapsed since the original work was published, long before the invaluable decisions of Sir William Scott, Sir C. Robinson, and Sir John Nichol, and other eminent Judges in the Courts of Admiralty, and Prize and other Courts; and the last edition, upon which any care was bestowed, was published in A. D. 1797; since which time, and especially during the last general war, many most important rules respecting the Law of Nations were established. The object of the present Editor, has therefore, been to collect and condense, in numerous notes, the modern rules and decisions, and to fortify the positions in the text by references to other authors of eminence, and by which he hopes that this edition will be found of more practical utility…”

    And the Preface is signed “J. CHITTY, Chambers, 6, Chancery Lane, November, 1833.”

    In other words, this is the same preface as that to the first edition.

    It is abundantly clear from a plain English reading that Chitty is NOT saying that Sir William Scott translated the first edition with help from Sirs Robinson and Nichol. It is abundantly clear that he’s saying that the decisions rendered in courts by these particular judges – and by other judges – have helped clarify and further define the “Law of Nations.”

    Is this what you’re referring to? I can only imagine that it is.

    He even repeats this, in a footnote on page 166 of the 1844 edition:

    “The respected decisions which have given rise to discussion, have principally been in foreign Courts of Admiralty, or Prize Courts; and the law respecting them has been better settled by the decisions of Sir W. Scott and Sir J. Nichol, so universally respected, than any other period of history. By the long established doctrine in England…”

    Assuming that the passage above in Chitty’s Preface to the 1834 edition is indeed what you’re referring to, that would NOT be any evidence at all in support of your theory. It would, however, be some fairly good evidence of one of two things:

    Either you have gone to such great lengths to dig up “evidence” to support your pet theory that you were willing to grotesquely mangle texts to fit the mold, or you have misunderstood the text so badly that any reader would do very well to take anything else you wrote with a grain of salt.

    It is circumstantial evidence. I did not say it was smoking-gun evidence. You always criticize me for not having smoking-gun evidence. Why would I compose a 1700-page work if I had smoking-gun evidence? You discount this evidence because it is not conclusive in itself. I maintain the massive correlational, corroborative and circumstantial evidence is what proves beyond a reasonable doubt my conclussion. You wish not read my book. You want to make your conclusions on a tidbit here and there. At least respect my effort to go beyond one or two tidbits. My conclusion is the only one that explains all the evidence I have amassed. You want to stand on one side of the mountain and claim you know what is on the other side.

  109. Scientist says:
    February 8, 2013 at 4:01 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: <

    That’s right. natural born ciizen = citoyen de naissance
    Offically certified as such by the government of Canada, an English/French bilingual country.

    Kind of destroys your argument that it derives from Vattel’s “indigene”. And that destroys the rest of your nonsense.

    I honestly feel badly that you wasted all that time and money producing a book with claims that are so egregiously wrong. Of course, you could have saved yourself that trouble by consulting with real experts first. And I am not claiming I am one in this area, but I do speak both English and French pretty well and can translate a simple phrase. And if I am unsure, I know where to look.

  110. gorefan says:
    February 8, 2013 at 4:01 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: That is the correct, official translation.Go complain to Ottawa if you don’t like it.

    So now that we know you misread that Scott was the translator of the 1797 edition will you be ethical and refund the money anyone may have spent on your book?

  111. Bob Gard says:
    February 8, 2013 at 4:03 pm  (Quote)

    Publius:
    There would’ve been many English-language law dictionaries prior to Bouvier’s. They would’ve all contained the term “natural born subject.” None of them would’ve contained the term “natural born citizen.” And I doubt that any of them contained the term “indigene.”

    It would be interesting, though, to see how those dictionaries defined “native.”

    My eBook lists many dictionaries and any definitions they had for these terms.

  112. C. Stanton says:
    February 8, 2013 at 4:05 pm  (Quote)

    Publius: You might find WordPress to be a pretty good platform to work with. That’s what this site and a lot of others are built on.

    Again, believe it or not, that was my first instinct as well because I have used it to contribute at other web sites before and could navigate its dashboard fairly well.

    If anyone here has used Go Daddy, then they know just how excruciating it is to work with their primitive tools. Not being a professional web designer, the process of executing Word Press proved rather cumbersome and, since time was of the essence (it being the eleventh hour and all that), this time it was I who decided to forgo that option.

    All I can say is that if constructive comments are sent in, with Bob’s permission, I will do my best to post them conspicuously and set up a pointer atop the home page which links to them. I will also say that there is little doubt as to whether Bob will or won’t approve of this.

  113. Whatever4 says:
    February 8, 2013 at 4:08 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard:

    Definitely a fair question. Is your source Wikipedia?

    Wikipedia as a first pass, but the colleges themselves have history pages.

    Part of the problem seems to be that I am calling universities Ivy League that weren’t. I did apply to Princeton, Harvard and Yale. The others I applied to were Stanford, MIT and CIT. I always thought they were Ivy League. I had picked these six because of their reputation. I wanted to gain entrance to CIT or MIT the most because I had dreams of being a mathematician.

    Cal Tech first admitted women in 1970. Stanford and MIT admitted women before 1900. However, most of these schools had need-blind admissions. You were admitted first, then you received your aid offer.

    By the way, have you ever asked Obama about the particulars of his education?

    No, but I have researched it. Obama himself has said that he may have been helped by affirmative action. If that’s true, then the colleges clearly made a good decision to admit him as the publicity he generated as president of Harvard Law Review and his later political career certainly has paid off. Here’s my research:
    http://www.thefogbow.com/special-reports/people-remember-president-obama/friends-2/
    http://www.thefogbow.com/special-reports/people-remember-president-obama/friends-3/
    http://www.thefogbow.com/special-reports/foreign-aid

  114. Scientist says:
    February 8, 2013 at 4:10 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: It is circumstantial evidence. I did not say it was smoking-gun evidence. You always criticize me for not having smoking-gun evidence. Why would I compose a 1700-page work if I had smoking-gun evidence? You discount this evidence because it is not conclusive in itself. I maintain the massive correlational, corroborative and circumstantial evidence is what proves beyond a reasonable doubt my conclussion. You wish not read my book. You want to make your conclusions on a tidbit here and there. At least respect my effort to go beyond one or two tidbits. My conclusion is the only one that explains all the evidence I have amassed. You want to stand on one side of the mountain and claim you know what is on the other side.

    No, I discount your conclusion because whoever translated “indigene” as “natural born citizen” was incorrect. And since “indigene” means native as in the sense of “indigenous peoples” and “citoyen de naissance” means “natural born citizen”, then natural born citizen did not derive from Vattel.

    And that, my friend, makes your work, all 1700 pages, simply a house of cards built on a foundation of sand.

  115. Bob Gard says:
    February 8, 2013 at 4:12 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: That’s right.natural born ciizen = citoyen de naissance
    Offically certified as such by the government of Canada, an English/French bilingual country.

    Kind of destroys your argument that it derives from Vattel’s “indigene”.And that destroys the rest of your nonsense.

    I honestly feel badly that you wasted all that time and money producing a book with claims that are so egregiously wrong.Of course, you could have saved yourself that trouble by consulting with real experts first.And I am not claiming I am one in this area, but I do speak both English and French pretty well and can translate a simple phrase.And if I am unsure, I know where to look.

    Show me any “citoyen de naissance” in any book, note, document, French dictionary or essay prior to 1787.

  116. Welsh Dragon says:
    February 8, 2013 at 4:13 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: Find me one citation of “Citoyen de naissance” prior to the Constitution

    http://books.google.com/books?id=ZV7_WmcWWycC&pg=PA507&dq=%22Citoyen+de+naissance%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VWkVUdO7OLGH0QGQ2YCYCQ&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Citoyen%20de%20naissance%22&f=false

    1659

    Although in fairness in the timeframe we’re talking about I think “citoyen naturel” would be more likely. I have seen “citoyen naturel de naissance” but not until the 1850s.

  117. gorefan says:
    February 8, 2013 at 4:17 pm  (Quote)

    C. Stanton: All I can say is that if constructive comments are sent in, with Bob’s permission, I will do my best to post them conspicuously and set up a pointer atop the home page which links to them. I will also say that there is little doubt as to whether Bob will or won’t approve of this.

    Oh, stop it. It’s obvious Bob has no intention of answering any questions.

  118. Arthur says:
    February 8, 2013 at 4:18 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: Why would I compose a 1700-page work if I had smoking-gun evidence?

    Because like every other crank fabulist, in order to make you arguments work, you’re obliged to trace long-winded explanations that almost make complete sense. Remove the verbosity that strokes your ego, and there’s nothing there but “what if,” “if only,” and “I wish.”

  119. Bob Gard says:
    February 8, 2013 at 4:23 pm  (Quote)

    JPotter: Really? How does McCain, born to 2 citizens, not meet your definition?

    The current judicial interpretation of NBC has stood for over 100 years. Let’s assume it was the candidacy of someone you felt was ineligible that prompted you to start writing.

    If McCain is, in your mind, ineligible, then why wasn’t this project undertaken in 2000?

    Note, there are several easy outs here, you could say you were otherwise occupied, are now retired and have the time, etc. But if this has been a burning issue for you since the 8th grade, wouldn’t you have found the time over the nearly 40 years between your 8th grade experience and McCain’s first candidacy?

    Now, that’s not fair. Bob inspired the breaking of the internet. It took a village.

    I was able to raise a family and write two other books. The information I gathered for them was free. I could not spend $40,000 and more than a solid year of research and writing without earning wages at the same time I was raising a family or helping them after they left the nest. If you believe that there were real experts, why are there disparate court decisions on the subject and such varied views? Have you undertaken such a research project for anything? Were you by chance the one who coined ” if my aunt had . . .she’d be my uncle.”

  120. gorefan says:
    February 8, 2013 at 4:25 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: My conclusion is the only one that explains all the evidence I have amassed.

    But if you misread the evidence (as it certainly appears that you have) then the conclusions are worthless.

  121. Bob Gard says:
    February 8, 2013 at 4:26 pm  (Quote)

    Publius:
    I’d like to contribute a resource to the debate.

    Earlier, dictionaries were mentioned.

    Bouvier’s Law Dictionary was written to address the need for an American dictionary of law. Originally published in 1839, it came well before the better-known Black’s.

    There doesn’t seem to be an online copy of the 1839 edition, but there is of the 6th edition, published in 1856. I have copied the 6 pages that would cover such terms as native, natural, natural born, and naturalization into one small file.

    I think the definitions given by Bouvier to some of these terms might be useful in debating the meaning of such terms in early America.

    Here’s the link:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/124565183/Native-and-Natural-from-Bouvier-s-Law-Dictionary-1856

    The full dictionary is of course available online for anyone who wants to confirm that these pages are indeed from the 1856 edition of Bouvier’s Law Dictionary. But since it’s a 45-meg download, I thought I’d make it a bit easier to get just those 6 pages.

    I have more than six pages on the various editions of Bouvier’s. You might want to know that this dictionary was the best one for it’s treatment of Vattel.

  122. gorefan says:
    February 8, 2013 at 4:27 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: why are there disparate court decisions

    There aren’t, the courts have been uniform in their statements about Presidential eligiblity.

  123. Arthur says:
    February 8, 2013 at 4:29 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: Were you by chance the one who coined ” if my aunt had . . .she’d be my uncle.”

    I don’t know what J.Potter coined, but I came up with this one: “If Bob was honest, he’d have responded to Dr. C. by now.”

    Get to it, Bob! That grave ain’t gonna’ dig itself.

  124. Bob Gard says:
    February 8, 2013 at 4:30 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: No, I discount your conclusion because whoever translated “indigene” as “natural born citizen” was incorrect.And since “indigene” means native as in the sense of “indigenous peoples” and “citoyen de naissance” means “natural born citizen”, then natural born citizen did not derive from Vattel.

    And that, my friend, makes your work, all 1700 pages, simply a house of cards built on a foundation of sand.

    Again, no dictionary in the world incoporated Vattel’s definition of indigenes. Dictionary sources are irrlevant, including Webster’s 1828 dictionary. If you had $12.45 to spend, you’d find that out. How little value you put on knowledge.

  125. Welsh Dragon says:
    February 8, 2013 at 4:32 pm  (Quote)

    Is Bob going to reply to the Doc anytime soon?

  126. Arthur says:
    February 8, 2013 at 4:33 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: Again, no dictionary in the world incoporated Vattel’s definition of indigenes.

    And no court in the United States accepts your definition of natural-born citizen.

  127. Publius says:
    February 8, 2013 at 4:33 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: It is circumstantial evidence. I did not say it was smoking-gun evidence. You always criticize me for not having smoking-gun evidence. Why would I compose a 1700-page work if I had smoking-gun evidence? You discount this evidence because it is not conclusive in itself. I maintain the massive correlational, corroborative and circumstantial evidence is what proves beyond a reasonable doubt my conclussion. You wish not read my book. You want to make your conclusions on a tidbit here and there. At least respect my effort to go beyond one or two tidbits. My conclusion is the only one that explains all the evidence I have amassed. You want to stand on one side of the mountain and claim you know what is on the other side.

    But the claim that Scott, Nicholl and Robinson translated the 1797 edition of Vattel rests on no evidence at all, since it’s clear that the passage in Chitty’s translation refers only to their contribution to the “Law of Nations” as judges, who had rendered important court decisions.

    And in fact, while I certainly haven’t read the entirety of your book, the points that you’ve brought up here (which I would assume to be some of your biggest, most major points) have all failed on the evidence you’ve presented. They also fly in the face of a great deal of much stronger evidence, only a small portion of which has even been mentioned so far. But even the little bit of authority cited by ballantine (and believe me, there’s a lot more where that came from) has not really been responded to by you. That is of course understandable, because I don’t know that there’s really that much you can say. You could of course try to argue that early authorities who contradict the need for citizen parents really meant something other than what they said (like Mario Apuzzo does), but I suspect you are too honest for that.

    I too feel bad that you’ve invested so much time, effort and money into a book that, as far as I can tell, comes to quite a lot of invalid conclusions. Based on my experience with you so far, you frankly seem like a straightforward, decent man. And so does your editor, C. Stanton.

    I can also understand the excitement of feeling like you’ve uncovered something important that other people have missed. Unfortunately, most of the time when the metal detector buzzes, it isn’t a gold doubloon buried in the sand. Unfortunately, most of the time, it’s just a broken $25 Timex.

  128. Scientist says:
    February 8, 2013 at 4:39 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: Again, no dictionary in the world incoporated Vattel’s definition of indigenes. Dictionary sources are irrlevant, including Webster’s 1828 dictionary.

    That’s ridiculous. Welsh Dragon pointed you to the term “citoyen de naissance” from 1659 and not in a dictionary. That is French for natural born citizen. Indigene is not. Simple as that.

    Welsh Dragon: http://books.google.com/books?id=ZV7_WmcWWycC&pg=PA507&dq=%22Citoyen+de+naissance%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VWkVUdO7OLGH0QGQ2YCYCQ&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Citoyen%20de%20naissance%22&f=false1659Although in fairness in the timeframe we’re talking about I think “citoyen naturel” would be more likely. I have seen “citoyen naturel de naissance” but not until the 1850s.

  129. Bob Gard says:
    February 8, 2013 at 4:40 pm  (Quote)

    ballantine: Seriously, it is somewhat irrational to think one can put odds on such rank speculation and completely irrational to think one has proven something.Such argument would actually be laughed at by a court.

    Wait.Washington was friends with William Rawle.Wow, in all their meetings, it is inconceivable that Rawle didn’t asked him about what natural born citizen meant.Wow, I just proved that Rawle had the correct definition in his Treatise.I think’s its at least 99% sure.Hey, this is easy.

    I realize the legal profession makes no attempt to put a quantitive value on the levels of proof except for the preponderance of evidence at 51%, which is more ridiculous than my admittedly arbitrary valuations. At least mine are outside the standard deviation. Please explain to me how the law can justifiy that percentage mathematically and how judges can be ready to determine a case in favor of either plaintiff or defendant in small claims or in a university where the life of a man accused of sexual misconduct can be ruined on the basis of that legal level of proof? I’m irrational? In my eBook, I do confess that I would not seriously defend my percentages, but you will convict me without knowing that.

  130. Arthur says:
    February 8, 2013 at 4:46 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: Please explain to me . . .

    Why don’t you explain to Dr. C. your response to his debate question? That grave ain’t gonna’ dig itself.

  131. Dave B. says:
    February 8, 2013 at 4:48 pm  (Quote)

    Some mountains, you can tell what they’re made of just by the smell.

    Bob Gard: You want to stand on one side of the mountain and claim you know what is on the other side.

  132. gorefan says:
    February 8, 2013 at 4:50 pm  (Quote)

    Welsh Dragon: “citoyen naturel”

    I believe that the Founders in reading Vattel would have translated the French as “The natural born, or indigenes” or possible as “The natural born, or natives”.

    I use the translation of the treaty between the US and France as a guide. On July 27th, 1781 the Journal of the Continental Congress lists both the French and English translation of the treaty. In the French version is the phrase “les sujets naturels” which the Continental Congress translated as “natural born subjects”.

    “Les consuls et vice consuls respectifs ne pourront être pris que parmi les sujets naturels de la puissance qui les nommera.”

    “The respective Consuls and Vice Consuls shall only be taken from among the natural born subjects of the power nominating them.”

  133. Jim says:
    February 8, 2013 at 4:50 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: You might want to know that this dictionary was the best one for it’s treatment of Vattel.

    Bob Gard: Dictionary sources are irrlevant, including Webster’s 1828 dictionary.

    So, basically what you’re saying is if a dictionary treats a subject the way you want it to it’s a good source, but if it doesn’t it’s irrelevant…at least that’s my take from your statements.

  134. Bob Gard says:
    February 8, 2013 at 4:56 pm  (Quote)

    ballantine: Seriously, it is somewhat irrational to think one can put odds on such rank speculation and completely irrational to think one has proven something.Such argument would actually be laughed at by a court.

    Wait.Washington was friends with William Rawle.Wow, in all their meetings, it is inconceivable that Rawle didn’t asked him about what natural born citizen meant.Wow, I just proved that Rawle had the correct definition in his Treatise.I think’s its at least 99% sure.Hey, this is easy.

    Aren’t you the one that keeps telling me I know nothing about evidence? You said I didn’t know what circumstantial evidence was and what beyond a reasonable doubt meant? If you are, I have a response for you.

    Do you mean I can’t read old law dictionaries. I have a bunch right back to the late 1700s. Take a more recent one, like the 1922 edition of Cyclopedic Law Dictionary. A section of the long entry on “circumstantial evidence” instructs that “Circumstantial evidence is of two kinds, namely, certain, or that from which the conclusion in question necessarily follows [the one you recognized which was not what I was calling circumstantial evidence] and uncertain, or that from which conclusion does not necessarily follow, but is probable only and is obtained by process of reasoning—the kind I was referring to and you refused to acknowledge. You wonder why many people don’t trust lawyers. You seem to infer yourself to be a lawyer but you haven’t come out and said it. Are you?

    You told me I didn’t know what “beyond a resonable doubt” meant. “Although beyond a reasonable doubt is not defined in all law dictionaries, when it is, the typical definition follows these lines [from Bouvier’s]:

    It is not mere possible doubt; because everything relating to human affairs and depending upon moral evidence is open to some imaginary or possible doubt. It is that state of the case which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of jurors in such a condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction to a moral certainty, of the truth of the charge. . . . If upon such proof there is reasonable doubt remaining, the accused is entitled to the benefit of it by an acquittal. For it is not sufficient to establish a probability, though a strong one arising from the doctrine of chances, that the fact charged is more likely to be true than the contrary; but the evidence must establish the truth of the fact to a moral and reasonable certainty,—a certainty that convinces and directs the understanding and satisfies the reason and judgment of those who are bound to act conscientiously upon it. This is proof beyond reasonable doubt; because if the law, which mostly depends upon considerations of a moral nature, should go further than this and require absolute certainty, it would exclude circumstantial altogether.

    Some prosecuting attorneys have attained guilty verdicts for accused murderers when there has been no corpse and no murder weapon. Kind of like having no smoking-gun—my problem in the eBook. They can do it but I can’t try to do the same thing because I am not a lawyer? Again, I ask pointblank, are you a lawyer? Do you want to give me a definition for correlational evidence? Don’t embarrass yourself. If you are so knowledgeable, you will know why you shouldn’t.

  135. Scientist says:
    February 8, 2013 at 4:56 pm  (Quote)

    Jim: So, basically what you’re saying is if a dictionary treats a subject the way you want it to it’s a good source, but if it doesn’t it’s irrelevant…at least that’s my take from your statements.

    Just like the Constitution follows plain English meaning, except when that’s inconvenient for Bob.

  136. Publius says:
    February 8, 2013 at 5:01 pm  (Quote)

    In general, dictionaries are a pretty good indication of what words are generally accepted to mean. That, after all, is what they are for. That’s the… um… definition of a dictionary.

    dictionary – a book… containing a selection of the words of a language, giving information about their meanings, pronunciations, etymologies, inflected forms, derived forms, etc…

    It’s certainly relevant what dictionaries list as the definition of words such as “native,” “natural,” etc. Such definitions become even more relevant for the purposes of this conversation when the dictionary involved is specifically a legal one. And if one makes any attempt at objectivity, one can’t simply pick and choose only the few dictionaries (and other sources of information) that they happen to like.

  137. Arthur says:
    February 8, 2013 at 5:04 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: Aren’t you the one that keeps telling me I know nothing about evidence?

    Bob. Bobby. Robert. Focus. Look. Look here: in the past 20 minutes you’ve responded twice to ballantine without a reciprocal reply from him, and yet you still haven’t favored Dr. C. with a reply to his debate question that’s been sitting there, all alone, for a couple of hours. Better get diggin’.

  138. Dave B. says:
    February 8, 2013 at 5:04 pm  (Quote)

    Bob, your lack of qualifications isn’t the problem. It’s your utter lack of a persuasive argument. Did you select your least persuasive arguments to include in your chapter excerpts?

    Bob Gard: Some prosecuting attorneys have attained guilty verdicts for accused murderers when there has been no corpse and no murder weapon. Kind of like having no smoking-gun—my problem in the eBook. They can do it but I can’t try to do the same thing because I am not a lawyer?

  139. Bob Gard says:
    February 8, 2013 at 5:05 pm  (Quote)

    Dave B.:
    Bob Gard:“If I hadn’t found out about the meetings, then I would not have been able to make what I termed a small leap of faith. I did admit an estimated chance between 2% and 10% of being wrong. I gave an analogy that the likelihood of these two not discussing citizenship and subjectship, the crux of the prize and impressment problem, at their meetings, would be the same as two NFL Super-Bowl ring holders having a meeting and not discussing their Super Bowls, especially I might add here, if they were on a committe to discuss new rules. Yeah, there is a chance but miniscule. I also uncovered in Pellew’s book that Scott and Jay became friends and kept in touch afterwards with correspondence.”

    Bob, you’re not just presuming that discussions of citizenship occurred, you’re presuming what, specifically, was discussed, and with whom, and you’re presuming a specific result of such a discussion.You’re also presuming Sir William Scott is your “secret editor”, and is specifically responsible for the substitution of “natural born citizens” for “indigenes”.And you’re presuming a specific reason for the substitution.You’re presuming that John Jay had, years earlier, transmitted the same sense of “natural born citizen” to the Constitutional Convention and that the Convention had concurred with it; you’re presuming that the intent of the Convention was to impose such a specific limit on Presidential eligibility.And to prove all this, you produce a dinner invitation. The athleticism of your “small leap of faith” is absolutely astonishing!
    You’d have to be right about every single one of those presumptions for your theory to hold water. Seriously, do you think you only have “an estimated chance between 2% and 10% of being wrong”?

    How could you meet to negotiate a settlement on terms of impressment without discussing subjectship and citizenship when British impressment was based on the obligation of natural-born subjectship’s perpetual allegiance, which opposed the American meaning of natural-born citizenship that incorporated the right to expatriation?

  140. gorefan says:
    February 8, 2013 at 5:07 pm  (Quote)

    Publius: one can’t simply pick and choose only the few dictionaries (and other sources of information) that they happen to like.

    But then he wouldn’t have a book to sell.

  141. Arthur says:
    February 8, 2013 at 5:07 pm  (Quote)

    You’re stalling, Bob.

  142. Publius says:
    February 8, 2013 at 5:12 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: Circumstantial evidence is of two kinds, namely, certain, or that from which the conclusion in question necessarily follows [the one you recognized which was not what I was calling circumstantial evidence] and uncertain, or that from which conclusion does not necessarily follow, but is probable only and is obtained by process of reasoning

    Your quote from Bouvier’s basically goes on to say that probable isn’t good enough. What “beyond a reasonable doubt” means (in essence), is really, really probable. So probable that there’s no excuse for finding the person innocent.

    Under our standards, OJ Simpson was acquited of the crime of murder even though there was a LOT of evidence indicating that he had committed the crime. There was still room for just that little bit of doubt.

    There are a few different standards here. I’m sure, from the title of your book, that you were aiming to present evidence that went beyond a reasonable doubt.

    But the evidence you’ve presented so far doesn’t even make your scenario likely. In fact, on the basis of the evidence we’ve seen so far (just in one point, the point that Sir William Scott allegedly edited the 1797 edition of Vattel), it appears downright unlikely (to the tune of somewhere around 99.9% unlikely) that Sir William Scott did the translating that you’ve alleged.

  143. gorefan says:
    February 8, 2013 at 5:12 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: How could you meet to negotiate a settlement on terms of impressment without discussing subjectship and citizenship

    How could the Framers at the April meeting of the Society for Political Inquiries not discussed citizenship especially with James Wilson in the audience. In the Q and A that followed Rawle’s presentation, they would have had to come up with a discussion of Wilson’s situation and the meaning of natural born citizen.

    When Rawle wrote “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”, he was just repeating the definition that they had come up with just before the start of the Convention.

  144. Bob Gard says:
    February 8, 2013 at 5:12 pm  (Quote)

    Whatever4:
    Aieeee! You closed the previous thread as I was commenting, and I lost the post. No problem.

    Mr. Gard: please clear this up for me. You said: “I did have a 4.0 in high school and I was denied a partial scholarship due to my gender and race to the six Ivy League universities I applied to. ”

    If you were 13 in 1960, then you would have been applying to colleges around 1965. There weren’t 6 Ivy League schools that accepted women until the 1970s. There are 8 IvyLeague colleges. Princeton and Yale didn’t admit women until 1969. Harvard and Brown had separate women’s colleges that merged with the Ivy college in 1970 and 1971. Dartmouth first admitted women in 1972. Columbia College admitted women in 1983. Penn and Cornell admitted women from very early in their histories.

    So you either applied in the 1970s, are stretching the definition of Ivy League, or are mistaken in your memory. My experience with scholarships is also a bit different. We applied to the college separately for admission and aid. Aid discussions came after acceptance. Were you actually accepted to 6 Ivies then turned down for aid?

    Please clear these questions up as they certainly reflect on your veracity. (Voracity for AFU fans. )

    Acceptance depended on the ability to pay. If one could not pay the full tuition, one had to acquire a partial scholarship before being granted acceptance. I would have been accepted if I could pay. I would probably have gotten a partial scholarship if a parent or a relative alumnus was in my family tree, especially if they had donated once in a while.

  145. Majority Will says:
    February 8, 2013 at 5:15 pm  (Quote)

    Jim:
    So, basically what you’re saying is if a dictionary treats a subject the way you want it to it’s a good source, but if it doesn’t it’s irrelevant…at least that’s my take from your statements.

    Just like those gosh darn “activist” judges he whines about.

    Some birthers do seem to whine an awful lot. It’s too bad for birthers that their ill-informed opinions don’t amount to a hill of beans for the rest of us in the reality based world who respect the law.

  146. Bob Gard says:
    February 8, 2013 at 5:18 pm  (Quote)

    gorefan: How could the Framers at the April meeting of the Society for Political Inquiries not discussed citizenship especially with James Wilson in the audience.In the Q and A that followed Rawle’s presentation, they would have had to come up with a discussion of Wilson’s situation and the meaning of natural born citizen.

    When Rawle wrote “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”, he was just repeating the definition that they had come up with just before the start of the Convention.

    In the eBook I discuss Wilson’s contributions regarding eligibilty for various offices. I also discuss some of the ideas he expressed in his Lectures and his attitude toward Vattel.

  147. gorefan says:
    February 8, 2013 at 5:22 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: In the eBook I discuss Wilson’s contributions

    Did you discuss Rawle’s contribution?

  148. Arthur says:
    February 8, 2013 at 5:25 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: If one could not pay the full tuition, one had to acquire a partial scholarship before being granted acceptance.

    That is utter and complete baloney. I’ve worked in higher education for 25 years, and colleges do not evaluate prospective students for admission on their ability to pay. Students gain acceptance and then apply for financial aid. Colleges will not even consider a student’s financial aid need until after she or he has applied and been accepted.

  149. Dave B. says:
    February 8, 2013 at 5:27 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: How could you meet to negotiate a settlement on terms of impressment without discussing subjectship and citizenship when British impressment was based on the obligation of natural-born subjectship’s perpetual allegiance, which opposed the American meaning of natural-born citizenship that incorporated the right to expatriation?

    How could you do that? I don’t know, maybe by sticking to the point, which seems to be a foreign concept to you.

  150. Arthur says:
    February 8, 2013 at 5:28 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: In the eBook I discuss

    Great! How about discussing Dr. C.’s question? In the last three hours you’ve made over a dozen comments on this thread, but haven’t posted anything in the debate thread. Focus Bob.

  151. Scientist says:
    February 8, 2013 at 5:34 pm  (Quote)

    Bob, it is possible to convict on circumstantial evidence. However, there are at least 12 of us here and this jury does not consider your case proven even to the most minimal standards, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt.

    You are learning the difference between concocting arguments all by yourself without real feedback, perhaps running them past a few like-minded individuals already disposed to accept your conclusions vs presenting them to a well-informed audience that doesn’t share your prejudices.

    It is a humbling and painful experience for you I am sure, but a valuable one.

  152. Bob Gard says:
    February 8, 2013 at 5:34 pm  (Quote)

    Welsh Dragon:
    Maybe I’ve missed something since I’ve only been able to drop into this discussion for a few minutes at a time but:

    if John Jay met Sir William Scott in 1794 (which is pretty certain);

    if they discussed the term “natural born citizen” (which I suppose is possible, though I suspect unlikely);

    if Jay told Scott that that it too him it meant having two citizen parents ( which is even more unlikely);

    if Scott was the anonymous translator of the 1797 London edition of Vattel (which is highly unlikely – Scott was one the premier lawyers of his day, he would not have come cheap)

    WHY would Scott then substitute NBC for “indigenes” ? What would motivate him to do so? What does he gain from it? It’s not a better translation. It’s not even an important part of the book. To make the book more relevant to an infant republic whose future was still uncertain?

    It seems that you all want me to rewrite the book here. How about this, instead of asking me endless questions that are answered in the book, will you buy a copy for a $3 until the supply runs out? Do you really want to know the answers to your questions or are you all wasting my time for some kind of unknown pleasure? Any question you have, you can look for the answer by inserting a key word in the find function. Dr. Conspiracy has the eBook now. Please ask him if it is filled with over a thousand of pages of Gard commentary or historical information in the words of public jurists, dead authors, framers and founding fathers. The largest part of my eBook is written history. It can’t be spun or altered. I do not understand what your purpose is when the historical answers are ready to be brought up on a computer screen no matter how bad docx is. If you have Mac for Microsoft office, the eBook opens perfectly one page after another.

  153. ballantine says:
    February 8, 2013 at 5:37 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: I realize the legal profession makes no attempt to put a quantitive value on the levels of proof except for the preponderance of evidence at 51%, which is more ridiculous than my admittedly arbitrary valuations. At least mine are outside the standard deviation. Please explain to me how the law can justifiy that percentage mathematically and how judges can be ready to determine a case in favor of either plaintiff or defendant in small claims or in a university where the life of a man accused of sexual misconduct can be ruined on the basis of that legal level of proof? I’m irrational? In my eBook, I do confess that I would not seriously defend my percentages, but you will convict me without knowing that.

    Something I would expect from sovereign citizens, tax protesters and those who have no education in law at all, like birthers and you, but pretend to experts on the internet. We see that you don’t have any answers to actual legal authority that has been raised here. We see that no honest person would claim they knew as a fact what 2 people discussed 220 years ago when they have no actual evidence of such discussion. In all my days, I have never seen someone so delusional to suggest they could divine what people spoke about when they have no actual evidence at all to support them. Seriously, it is time to get help. I made a joke about Rawle and Washington, but it isn’t a joke to you because it is more likely they discussed natural born citizenship then Scott and Jay did. And, of couse, since you can’t show Jay ever told his theory to any founding father, you have no rational evidence that any such supposed theory was connected to the framing or ratification of the Constitution. A 5 year-old would know that. Seriously, is this too complicated for you? Am I typing too fast for you as this has been pointed out over and over here and you make no response becasue you cannot. Perhaps if you went to law school, you might understand what I am saying. Maybe you should go to a medical blog and tell all the doctors you know more than all of them. Is there anything more pathetic than someone with no understanding of a field, claiming he is smarter than every real scholar in the field, but who gets every understanding of the field wrong. I am sorry you didn’t get you ivy legue scholarships. I did’nt either, But, as was white male (if such was relevant), I was accepted at a dozen similar schools. I never thought of blaming it on race as I had so many advantages others didn’t. You make excuses, I graduated at the top of the schools I went to. Some people look for excuses, some achieve.

    To go on, your posts make clear you are dishonest. It isn’t hard to speculate why the English translators might have translated Vattel the way they did in 1797, but to imagine it is relevant to our Constotituion is indeed irrational. The bottom line is that people like you have done no real research, have no understanding of early American law, have no idea what Public law is as opposed to municipal law and simply ignore every significant court and scholar in our early Republic. You are truly people who seem to hate our founding fathers as you reject their clear intentions as to our republic no matter how often you call yourself “patriots.”

  154. Dave B. says:
    February 8, 2013 at 5:41 pm  (Quote)

    That’s your problem, Bob. Judging from the excerpts, you’re trying to spin it. And not very adroitly, I might add.

    Bob Gard: The largest part of my eBook is written history. It can’t be spun or altered.

  155. Jim says:
    February 8, 2013 at 5:43 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: Acceptance depended on the ability to pay.

    Really? So what about all those students who worked (some full-time) to afford their tuition, books, etc? If you were planning to work, did they require you to show you already had a job beforehand or did they just take your word that you’d be able to find a job? I grew up in a college town during the 60’s-70’s and lived on campus…and what you’re describing is, well, BS. First you apply, then you’re accepted (probably by multiple Colleges if you applied), then you figure out how you’re going to pay for it. And, if you can’t afford your first choice, then you go to your second…third…fourth.

  156. Bob Gard says:
    February 8, 2013 at 5:44 pm  (Quote)

    Arthur: That is utter and complete baloney. I’ve worked in higher education for 25 years, and colleges do not evaluate prospective students for admission on their ability to pay. Students gain acceptance and then apply for financial aid. Colleges will not even consider a student’s financial aid need until after she or he has applied and been accepted.

    Tell me why these people came to see me then? Tell my why I didn’t receive my rejection letters till after the interviews and after being turned down for a partial scholarship. ? Why do so many like you base their opions on their own experince that was decades after the fact?

  157. Arthur says:
    February 8, 2013 at 5:45 pm  (Quote)

    ballantine: To go on, your posts make clear you are dishonest. It isn’t hard to speculate why the English translators might have translated Vattel the way they did in 1797, but to imagine it is relevant to our Constotituion is indeed irrational. The bottom line is that people like you have done no real research, have no understanding of early American law, have no idea what Public law is as opposed to municipal law and simply ignore every significant court and scholar in our early Republic. You are truly people who seem to hate our founding fathers as you reject their clear intentions as to our republic no matter how often you call yourself “patriots.”

    Surely, he doth hit the nail upon its natural-born head.

  158. Dave B. says:
    February 8, 2013 at 5:46 pm  (Quote)

    Bob, why are you wasting time on such irrelevancies when Doc’s giving you the opportunity to make your argument one-on-one?

    Bob Gard: Acceptance depended on the ability to pay.

  159. C. Stanton says:
    February 8, 2013 at 5:50 pm  (Quote)

    Dave B.: Bob broke the internet.

    Well, at least he didn’t claim to have invented it.

  160. Publius says:
    February 8, 2013 at 5:51 pm  (Quote)

    As has been pointed out, William Rawle was a personal friend of George Washington, who presided over the Convention that wrote our Constitution.

    Rawle also presented an essay titled “An Enquiry into the Best Means of Encouraging Immigration, Consistently with the Happiness and Safety of the Original Citizens.” on April 20th, 1787 in front of a group of Founders gathered at Benjamin Franklin’s house. This was indeed just before the start of the Constitutional Convention.

    So Rawle personally knew both George Washington and Benjamin Franklin. He talked about citizenship with Ben Franklin and a bunch of other early American leaders at Ben Franklin’s house. He lived in the same city where the Constitutional Convention was held.

    Bob, by all your standards of “circumstantial evidence,” William Rawle would be a far, far better judge of what “natural born citizen” means that some Englishman over in England who might have translated an edition of Vattel (but probably didn’t), who may or may not have talked about the specific meaning of the phrase, with a guy who was in New York at the time of the Constitutional Convention, and who (even if he translated the book, which is extremely doubtful) was not making a translation that had any relevance to, or authority regarding, US law at all.

    And instead of giving some roundabout hint, Rawle was absolutely, crystal clear about whether citizen parents were needed in order for a person to be a natural born citizen:

    “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”

  161. Arthur says:
    February 8, 2013 at 5:53 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: Tell me why these people came to see me then? Tell my why I didn’t receive my rejection letters till after the interviews and after being turned down for a partial scholarship. ? Why do so many like you base their opions on their own experince that was decades after the fact?

    Bob, if you tell me what schools you applied to and when, I would be glad to research their financial aid policies and report back to you. As for why things happened as you describe, I think you’re probably misremembering. This happens all the time, especially when you’re trying to recall events from fifty years ago.

  162. Jim says:
    February 8, 2013 at 5:57 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: Tell me why these people came to see me then? Tell my why I didn’t receive my rejection letters till after the interviews and after being turned down for a partial scholarship. ? Why do so many like you base their opions on their own experince that was decades after the fact?

    Well, Colleges do NOT send out rejection slips till all the candidates have been looked at…unless the candidate is really bad. But even then, they send them out in bulk and not immediately. Quite simply, the College could have rejected you long before the financial aid but did not mail until after financial aid did. That, sir, is how the world works…the arrivals of the rejection notices have nothing to do with when each actually happened. Besides, why would a College reject someone like that? How would they know whether or not you had a back-up plan…like say grandparents or relatives kicking in to help? No, Colleges are only concerned with your ability to pay when the bills come due.

  163. C. Stanton says:
    February 8, 2013 at 5:58 pm  (Quote)

    US Citizen: The title alone has over 120 characters.

    And you had best bet that I had something to say to Bob about that as well.

    While the title will place itself in many searches (as was specifically intended by the author), I felt it was far too awkward and unmanageable. My vote was overridden.

  164. Dave B. says:
    February 8, 2013 at 6:02 pm  (Quote)

    Not yet, anyway. And he hasn’t responded to Doc’s opening debate question, either, although he’s perfectly happy to go on about utter irrelevancies over here.

    C. Stanton:
    Dave B.: Bob broke the internet.

    Well, at least he didn’t claim to have invented it.

  165. ballantine says:
    February 8, 2013 at 6:02 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: How could you meet to negotiate a settlement on terms of impressment without discussing subjectship and citizenship when British impressment was based on the obligation of natural-born subjectship’s perpetual allegiance, which opposed the American meaning of natural-born citizenship that incorporated the right to expatriation?

    YIKES. Again, you seem to have no understanding of law. In the actual world for people who got accepted to good schools and understand plain English, we didn’t recognize the right to expatriate to 1868. The impressment debates had nothing to do with one’s native allegiance. The English government fully understood people born on our soil owed their natural allegiance to us. Read the Report of the Royal Commissioners on Naturalization and Allegiance and it will tell you that England recognized people born on our soil owed allegiance to the United States, not England, even if their parents were English. The issue in the US was with respect to persons born in England and whether such persons still owed allegaince to England when they were naturalized in the US and went back to England, something the English violated as a matter of pubic in 1812 and then backed off. Seriously, do you even understand what I am talking about as none of you posts seem to understand this history at all? Have you done no research at all? Was there a single person in America or England that agreed with you? Why are you pretending to be an expert on things you know nothing about? Oh wait, the entire wing-nut base seems to do that. Perhaps, it is time to go to a medical blog and tell all the doctors you are smarter than them because you should have had an Ivy Leagus degree. Be that as it may, your arguments here are pathetic as they show a complete lack of understanding of the law, evidence, history and pretty much anything else you can connect to the Constitution.

  166. C. Stanton says:
    February 8, 2013 at 6:03 pm  (Quote)

    Reality Check: The first thing he should do is connect his computer directly to the router then disable all firewall and antivirus software.

    Do I detect a note of malice?

    I hope Dr. Conspiracy has the decency to delete your deliberately deceptive comment.

  167. Paper says:
    February 8, 2013 at 6:04 pm  (Quote)

    I would be tempted only by a free copy with the additional necessary proviso that you also donate a substantial amount of money (say $1,000, which could be part of a package of free copies for the group here, not just me) to K.I.D.S., a charity for disadvantaged children that has been supported by Barack Obama. The only problem with that would be I’m not about to give out my address or name. But in case you wish to make a donation:

    http://www.kidsdonations.org/home.php

    Bob Gard:
    … will you buy a copy for a $3 until the supply runs out? …

  168. slash2k says:
    February 8, 2013 at 6:06 pm  (Quote)

    Why would you think you’d receive an acceptance before the interview to decide whether or not they were going to accept you? Of course the decision came after the interview. That’s the point of the interview.

  169. C. Stanton says:
    February 8, 2013 at 6:12 pm  (Quote)

    Publius: As for posting any needed photos on the internet (hopefully Bob or C Stanton is reading this thread) – those can be posted to a web site (like the-constitutionist), or they can be uploaded to another site that hosts pictures, and then linked to. Tinypic.com works.

    Thank you for the suggestion, Publius. If Bob continues forward with a condensed version of the book, it will most likely not contain all of the images which bulked out the original eBook. Storing them—or providing a directory of links to them—at the website is an obvious answer with respect to making these images available for readers seeking verification of citations made in the book. Your idea is much appreciated.

  170. Scientist says:
    February 8, 2013 at 6:19 pm  (Quote)

    C. Stanton: Well, at least he didn’t claim to have invented it.

    Neither did Al Gore, though I’m sure you believe he did. Gore said he recognized its potential when he was in Congress and directed funding towards it. Which is totally true.

  171. Publius says:
    February 8, 2013 at 6:22 pm  (Quote)

    Paper: The only problem with that would be I’m not about to give out my address or name.

    I would actually be tempted by the $3 copy, except for the fact that payment would probably give out my address or name.

    Bob has obviously invested a lot of work into his project. He may have turned up some interesting things. I don’t think his overall conclusion has even a ghost of a hope. But it sounds like he’s digitized a lot of old books there.

  172. misha marinsky says:
    February 8, 2013 at 6:27 pm  (Quote)

    C. Stanton: Well, at least he didn’t claim to have invented it.

    Gore never made such a claim: http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

  173. Northland10 says:
    February 8, 2013 at 6:27 pm  (Quote)

    I am on the train now so I cannot grab my source but I do recall in the notes of a mid 19th Century Secretary of State, a discussion on naturalized versus NBC issues with. England. Some American citizens were causing a stir in England, especially in the Irish problems. England, thinking the Americans were naturalized Americans, were going to prosecute them for treason. Upon learning some were born here, they reversed their position.

    ballantine: YIKES.Again, you seem to have no understanding of law.In the actual world for people who got accepted to good schools and understand plain English, we didn’t recognize the right to expatriate to 1868. The impressment debates had nothing to do with one’s native allegiance.The English government fully understood people born on our soil owed their natural allegiance to us.Read the Report of the Royal Commissioners on Naturalization and Allegiance and it will tell you that England recognized people born on our soil owed allegiance to the United States, not England, even if their parents were English.The issue in the US was with respect to persons born in England and whether such persons still owed allegaince to England when they were naturalized in the US and went back to England, something the English violated as a matter of pubic in 1812 and then backed off.Seriously, do you even understand what I am talking about as none of you posts seem to understand this history at all?Have you done no research at all?Was there a single person in America or England that agreed with you?Why are you pretending to be an expert on things you know nothing about?Oh wait, the entire wing-nut base seems to do that. Perhaps, it is time to go to a medical blog and tell all the doctors you are smarter than them because you should have had an Ivy Leagus degree.Be that as it may, your arguments here are pathetic as they show a complete lack of understanding of the law, evidence, history and pretty much anything else you can connect to the Constitution.

    ballantine: YIKES.Again, you seem to have no understanding of law.In the actual world for people who got accepted to good schools and understand plain English, we didn’t recognize the right to expatriate to 1868. The impressment debates had nothing to do with one’s native allegiance.The English government fully understood people born on our soil owed their natural allegiance to us.Read the Report of the Royal Commissioners on Naturalization and Allegiance and it will tell you that England recognized people born on our soil owed allegiance to the United States, not England, even if their parents were English.The issue in the US was with respect to persons born in England and whether such persons still owed allegaince to England when they were naturalized in the US and went back to England, something the English violated as a matter of pubic in 1812 and then backed off.Seriously, do you even understand what I am talking about as none of you posts seem to understand this history at all?Have you done no research at all?Was there a single person in America or England that agreed with you?Why are you pretending to be an expert on things you know nothing about?Oh wait, the entire wing-nut base seems to do that. Perhaps, it is time to go to a medical blog and tell all the doctors you are smarter than them because you should have had an Ivy Leagus degree.Be that as it may, your arguments here are pathetic as they show a complete lack of understanding of the law, evidence, history and pretty much anything else you can connect to the Constitution.

  174. Paper says:
    February 8, 2013 at 6:36 pm  (Quote)

    True enough. Let’s say I’d consider paying the $3, with great reservation and much gnashing of teeth (for dramatic effect, mind you), if and only if he made the donation. That would be my personal condition, in lieu of him paying me to read it (which is the point of my response). But regardless, he also could convert it into a PDF or other such format and sell it as an ebook for $3 if he wanted.

    Publius: I would actually be tempted by the $3 copy, except for the fact that payment would probably give out my address or name.

    Bob has obviously invested a lot of work into his project. He may have turned up some interesting things. I don’t think his overall conclusion has even a ghost of a hope. But it sounds like he’s digitized a lot of old books there.

  175. Dave B. says:
    February 8, 2013 at 6:39 pm  (Quote)

    So far no one has consulted that genuine authority on the meaning of “natural born”, Dr. McKinley Morganfield, D.D., D.Bl., U. (for Universality) of Chicago. Here’s Dr. Morganfield addressing the subject in a 1971 lecture; the first reference to “natural born” comes at about 1:38.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5IOou6qN1o
    I can also produce persuasive evidence that Dr. Morganfield discussed the matter with Sir Michael Philip Jagger at the Checkerboard Lounge.

  176. Paper says:
    February 8, 2013 at 6:41 pm  (Quote)

    I mean, he’s already getting our time here for free. Why isn’t he paying us for our comments? We’re giving him a free focus group, after all. I’m being a bit tongue in cheek, obviously. Just trying to balance out Gard’s repeated and repeated refrain of “buy the book.”

  177. Publius says:
    February 8, 2013 at 6:42 pm  (Quote)

    Dave B.: D.Bl.

    Doctor of Blues?

  178. Dave B. says:
    February 8, 2013 at 6:44 pm  (Quote)

    And Doctor of the Delta.

    Publius: Doctor of Blues?

  179. C. Stanton says:
    February 8, 2013 at 6:47 pm  (Quote)

    Reality Check: This was satire. I dawned on me that he might just take me seriously.

    Then you sorely underestimate Mr. Gard’s intelligence. Bob is computer savvy enough to where your “suggestion” would never be taken up. None of that changes the nasty implications of what would result to most people’s computers if they followed your advice.

    It’s like telling someone that they should slam on their brakes to shake off a tailgater.

    Proper satire usually doesn’t have such a vicious edge to it.

  180. C. Stanton says:
    February 8, 2013 at 6:50 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: I have another entire article set for this purpose.

    Cool beans, Doc. That’s great! Thank you.

  181. Dave B. says:
    February 8, 2013 at 6:51 pm  (Quote)

    Tell that to Jonathan Swift.

    C. Stanton: Proper satire usually doesn’t have such a vicious edge to it.

  182. Reality Check says:
    February 8, 2013 at 6:51 pm  (Quote)

    I already explained it was satire when I realized Bob Gard was so computer illiterate that he might actually take me seriously.

    C. Stanton:
    Reality Check: The first thing he should do is connect his computer directly to the router then disable all firewall and antivirus software.

    Do I detect a note of malice?

    I hope Dr. Conspiracy has the decency to delete your deliberately deceptive comment.

  183. Arthur says:
    February 8, 2013 at 7:00 pm  (Quote)

    C. Stanton: Proper satire usually doesn’t have such a vicious edge to it.

    You’re a pompous fool and completely unfamiliar with the nature of satire. Below are two standard definitions of satire:

    1. the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
    2. a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.

    “Denouncing,” “deriding,” “derision,” “scorn,” “ridicule.” Satire is a slap in the face. Get used to it.

  184. Bob Gard says:
    February 8, 2013 at 7:08 pm  (Quote)

    I went to the Great Debate and read Dr. Conspiracy’s first question. Here’s my response. Let me know if I am supposed to respond in a different manner directly in the Great Debate. I could not figure out how.

    In the eBook, I did not know of three occurrences of natural-born citizens pointed out to me by Tonchen. I think he found two by way of Greschak, most of whose information had disappeared from the web when I started researching. These two were from Patsall and Spelman who wrote natural born citizens as English translations for Latin phrases. They were incredibly liberal translations, impossible to defend. Then Tonchen found a new one by Eelbeck, also with a faulty translation. I researched as best I could to verify if any of the framers had the translated books in their libraries or had made references to them. I found nothing so I have assumed Jay did not get the term from them. I have recently incorporated this information in my book.

    Madison wrote that a resolution reported by Jefferson in the Continental Congress of 1777 incorporated natural-born citizen. That turned out false. Jay did not get it from that resolution.

    In 1777 a resolution using the term natural born free Citizens was used in the Continental Congress. I believe the term was used linguistically to mean simply citizens born in the destination state to differentiate them from citizens of the other states immigrating into the destination state. The immigrants from the other states were called plain “citizens.” The resolution did not equate the terminology between the two states.

    I knew of a 1785 coded letter between Adams and Jefferson where one term was decoded as natural born Citizens but not with certification.

    Thanks to one of your contributors I have been informed of several uses I did not know about in state acts of naturalization. I have not incorporated them into my eBook yet. I will. Please let me know of others you might be referring to because you used the adverb “frequently.”

    “Was the meaning of that phrase taken from English Common Law, or from some other source, and if so, what?” The answer is no if refering to the Constitution. Jay took his meaning from Vattel. If you mean the meaning in those acts of naturalization, Americans had begun to use citizen to mean subject because they began to dislike a commmon term with England for citizenship. They were creating their own terms and their own law. They were defining themselves. They were withdrawing from English common law. Their use of citizen instead of subject evolved such that they linked the right to expatriation to it. That was the beginning of its separation from subject, which would also separate natural born citizen from natural born subject.

  185. gorefan says:
    February 8, 2013 at 7:09 pm  (Quote)

    Publius: He lived in the same city where the Constitutional Convention was held.

    Don’t forget that Rawle was the Secretary for the Library Company of Philadelphia (which was founded by Franklin) and Rawle wrote a letter to Washington during the Constitutional Convention in which he offered the Library’s books to the delegates of the Convention.

    One more dot that when connected proves that Rawle is the source of the meaning of the term natural born citizen.

  186. gorefan says:
    February 8, 2013 at 7:12 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: I went to the Great Debate and read Dr. Conspiracy’s first question. Here’s my response

    I think you are suppose to e-mail your response to Doc. C.

  187. Majority Will says:
    February 8, 2013 at 7:14 pm  (Quote)

    C. Stanton: “Proper satire usually doesn’t have such a vicious edge to it.”

    That just made RC’s quip a 1000 times funnier.

  188. gorefan says:
    February 8, 2013 at 7:15 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: They were creating their own terms and their own law. They were defining themselves.

    Then why did Connecticutt law’s say that anyone born in Connecticut was natural born?

    And you are missing the point of the Massachusett’s Acts – they used both terms NBC and NBS interchangeably until 1791. And even as late as 1797 they used NBC and NBS in the same resolutions.

  189. Majority Will says:
    February 8, 2013 at 7:16 pm  (Quote)

    “Bob is computer savvy enough to where your “suggestion” would never be taken up.”

    BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!

    Now that was funny! Whew!

    He doesn’t need Doc C. when he already has Doc X.

  190. gorefan says:
    February 8, 2013 at 7:17 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: Jay took his meaning from Vattel.

    Jay took the term natural born citizen from somewhere but not Vattel, the meaning of natural born citizen came from Rawle as shown previously.

  191. Bob Gard says:
    February 8, 2013 at 7:21 pm  (Quote)

    Paper:
    True enough. Let’s say I’d consider paying the $3, with great reservation and much gnashing of teeth (for dramatic effect, mind you), if and only if he made the donation.That would be my personal condition, in lieu of him paying me to read it (which is the point of my response).But regardless, he also could convert it into a PDF or other such format and sell it as an ebook for $3 if he wanted.

    Has there ever been a birther that has commited vicious acts? Have the CD sent to one of your friends, to your job or to a PO Box. If any of you are interested in buying it for $3, let me know in advance. I have converted it to PDF but that downgrades the quality of the photos and print substantially.

  192. Publius says:
    February 8, 2013 at 7:22 pm  (Quote)

    gorefan: Don’t forget that Rawle was the Secretary for the Library Company of Philadelphia (which was founded by Franklin) and Rawle wrote a letter to Washington during the Constitutional Convention in which he offered the Library’s books to the delegates of the Convention.

    I didn’t forget that, for the simple reason that I didn’t know it. 😀

  193. Publius says:
    February 8, 2013 at 7:24 pm  (Quote)

    I don’t think Bob read Dr. C’s question carefully enough.

  194. gorefan says:
    February 8, 2013 at 7:26 pm  (Quote)

    Publius: I don’t think Bob read Dr. C’s question carefully enough.

    I suspect Doc’s rules for the debate are too complicated for Bob to follow.

  195. Bob Gard says:
    February 8, 2013 at 7:28 pm  (Quote)

    Northland10:
    I am on the train now so I cannot grab my source but I do recall in the notes of a mid 19th Century Secretary of State, a discussion on naturalized versus NBC issues with. England. Some American citizens were causing a stir in England, especially in the Irish problems.England, thinking the Americans were naturalized Americans,were going to prosecute them for treason.Upon learning some were born here, they reversed their position.

    What Ballantine seems to be talking about talking about is England’s failure to recognize the right of other countries to naturalize Brits till 1870.

    180. By the terms of the treaty of naturalization between the United States of America and Great Britain, May 13, 1870, provision is made for the naturalization in either country of the subjects or citizens of the other, as well as for the renunciation of such acquired citizenship in such manner as shall be agreed upon by the governments of the respective countries. And the act heretofore referred to (33 Vict. c. 14) contains provisions from which it appears that Parliament has acted upon and adopted the substantial recommendations contained in the report of Her Majesty’s commissioners. The first conclusion at which these commissioners arrived was: ‘That under a sound system of international law such a thing as a double nationality should not be suffered to exist.’ (Nationality, London, 1869, p. 214; Field’s International Code, second edition, pp. 129, 130.)

  196. Arthur says:
    February 8, 2013 at 7:30 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: Has there ever been a birther that has commited vicious acts?

    You have, I imagine, heard of Orly Taitz?

  197. Publius says:
    February 8, 2013 at 7:32 pm  (Quote)

    I’m not talking about the rules, though. I’m talking about the question.

  198. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 8, 2013 at 7:33 pm  (Quote)

    Yes, there was a birther murderer.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/06/museum-guard-slain-by-white-supremacist-birther/

    I don’t know how you converted to PDF but the images are really sharp the way I did it (using Adobe Acrobat Standard).

    75 MB is too big to email, but I can send you a copy on a CD, or I could post it here in a password-protected zip file and email you the password.

    Let me know.

    Bob Gard: Has there ever been a birther that has commited vicious acts? Have the CD sent to one of your friends, to your job or to a PO Box. If any of you are interested in buying it for $3, let me know in advance. I have converted it to PDF but that downgrades the quality of the photos and print substantially.

  199. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 8, 2013 at 7:35 pm  (Quote)

    It was immediately obvious to me that it was a joke, not unlike the remark: “I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale. Are you interested?”

    C. Stanton: Do I detect a note of malice?

  200. Reality Check says:
    February 8, 2013 at 7:35 pm  (Quote)

    Doctor Conspiracy said:

    Bob may reply in an email to me (I’ve sent him an email before, so he has my address) and I will copy the text of his email to a comment posted under his name. The exchange here should look like he’s just leaving comments, although it will be less immediate because of the email delay.

    oy vey

  201. Majority Will says:
    February 8, 2013 at 7:39 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: Has there ever been a birther that has commited vicious acts?

    Quite a few. Here’s one infamous case:

    Birther and white supremacist James von Brunn murdered U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum security officer Stephen Johns on June 10, 2009. The birther bigot’s website was filled with conspiracy nonsense. It’s the same lies and paranoia birthers desperately need to believe to vilify the President or minorities. Stephen Johns’ wife and children lost a husband and father to the vile hatred and bigotry of a birther.

    More on von Brunn:

    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-06-10-shooter_N.htm

  202. Publius says:
    February 8, 2013 at 7:44 pm  (Quote)

    And yes, there have been birthers who’ve committed what I would call “vicious acts.” Slander, libel, demonization of those who disagree with them. As I recall, I think in at least one case a birther tried to get a non-birther fired from his job.

    Quite a few people would also say that false accusations (of which there have been dozens) of “proof” of alleged “criminal acts” (forging a birth certificate, etc.) and of “proof” of alleged Constitutional ineligibility would also qualify as “vicious acts.”

  203. chancery says:
    February 8, 2013 at 7:44 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: If by CIT you mean the California Institute of Technology, it is not and never has been called CIT, but always and only Cal Tech.So your memory does have some gaps.

    Just for the sake of being argumentative, that’s not _entirely_ correct. A friend of mine who went there once mentioned that the carabiners and other hardware belonging to a professor who led student rock climbing trips to Tahquitz Rock were stamped “CIT,” an acronym that Cal Tech students and faculty recognized, even if they never used it in speech. That professor characterized all human activity as either physics or chess. Rock climbing was physics.

  204. gorefan says:
    February 8, 2013 at 7:47 pm  (Quote)

    Publius: I’m talking about the question.

    That’s going to be the problem with the debate as I suspect Doc will ask a question and Bob will not give a direct answer. What I’ve seen of Bob’s comments here, he gives answers to what he wants the question to say not what it actually says.

  205. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 8, 2013 at 7:52 pm  (Quote)

    That will be more difficult in our agreed-upon format.

    gorefan: That’s going to be the problem with the debate as I suspect Doc will ask a question and Bob will not give a direct answer. What I’ve seen of Bob’s comments here, he gives answers to what he wants the question to say not what it actually says.

  206. ballantine says:
    February 8, 2013 at 7:52 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: What Ballantine seems to be talking about talking about is England’s failure to recognizethe right of other countries to naturalize Brits till 1870.

    180. By the terms of the treaty of naturalization between the United States of America and Great Britain, May 13, 1870, provision is made for the naturalization in either country of the subjects or citizens of the other, as well as for the renunciation of such acquired citizenship in such manner as shall be agreed upon by the governments of the respective countries. And the act heretofore referred to (33 Vict. c. 14) contains provisions from which it appears that Parliament has acted upon and adopted the substantial recommendations contained in the report of Her Majesty’s commissioners. The first conclusion at which these commissioners arrived was:‘That under a sound system of international law such a thing as a double nationality should not be suffered to exist.’ (Nationality, London, 1869, p. 214; Field’s International Code, second edition, pp. 129, 130.)

    Seriosuly, are you trying to look stupid? England recognized the right to expatriation in 1870, 2 years after we did. Before that, it was a subject to debate in each nation. Prior to that, both nations allowed a partial right to expatriation and we were pretty much on the same page with England after the war of 1812. Can you tell me the rule of Public Law in the early 19th century that England and the United States and pretty much everyone else followed? Why would someone who knows nothing about Public Law post as an expert on the subject? It is really sad, but with each post you look more ignorant than the last. Perhaps you should actually study law before claiming to be an expert as this is getting embarrassing.

  207. Bob Gard says:
    February 8, 2013 at 7:55 pm  (Quote)

    Majority Will: Quite a few. Here’s one infamous case:

    Birther and white supremacist James von Brunnmurdered U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum security officer Stephen Johns on June 10, 2009. The birther bigot’s website was filled with conspiracy nonsense. It’s the same lies and paranoia birthers desperately need to believe to vilify the President or minorities. Stephen Johns’ wife and children lost a husband and father to the vile hatred and bigotry of a birther.

    More on von Brunn:

    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-06-10-shooter_N.htm

    I stand corrected.

  208. gorefan says:
    February 8, 2013 at 7:57 pm  (Quote)

    ballantine: England recognized the right to expatriation in 1870, 2 years after we did.

    The Virginia Citizenship law of 1779 (drafted by Jefferson) had provisions for both jus soli citizenship and expatriation.

    Bob seems to think that both cannot exist at the same time. Of course he is wrong.

  209. Jim says:
    February 8, 2013 at 7:59 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    That will be more difficult in our agreed-upon comment.

    Not much of a debate Doc. Doesn’t seem like Bob’s interested in facts, just opinions…mostly his.

  210. Majority Will says:
    February 8, 2013 at 8:02 pm  (Quote)

    gorefan: That’s going to be the problem with the debate as I suspect Doc will ask a question and Bob will not give a direct answer.What I’ve seen of Bob’s comments here, he gives answers to what he wants the question to say not what it actually says.

    But in 1968, I picked up a mysterious, glowing rock in the road on the way to Vilnius through Paberžė. We were stopped by police agents who were looking for highwaymen matching our description. It turns out the rock was actually an integral part of the structure to a top secret spy plane that had crashed during one of several test flights in the area. To make a long story even more unnecessarily longer and completely off topic, the highwaymen were Peace Corps hippies disguised as geishas for an elaborate festival known as Saint Casimir’s Day. We had sausages and drank a local wine made from shoe leather and scuppernongs imported from North Carolina. I remember that the watch I bought from an old sailor had letters from an obscure Asian dialect that only priests and monks were privy. The days were short and the nights were long when we drank that wine. What was the question again?

  211. Ballantine says:
    February 8, 2013 at 8:04 pm  (Quote)

    gorefan: The Virginia Citizenship law of 1779 (drafted by Jefferson) had provisions for both jus soli citizenship and expatriation.

    Bob seems to think that both cannot exist at the same time.Of course he is wrong.

    Yes, and England slowly replaced the rule of perpetual allegianc over two centuries while maintaining jus soli. I guess, no one got the memo. Perhaps Bob might actually study what he posts about.

  212. gorefan says:
    February 8, 2013 at 8:07 pm  (Quote)

    Ballantine: Perhaps Bob might actually study what he posts about.

    Wait, are you saying that you are suppose to do the research before you write the book? That’s a novel idea.

  213. gorefan says:
    February 8, 2013 at 8:10 pm  (Quote)

    Majority Will: But in 1968, I picked up a mysterious, glowing rock in the road on the way to Vilnius through Paberžė. We were stopped by police agents who were looking for highwaymen matching our description. It turns out the rock was actually an integral part of the structure to a top secret spy plane that had crashed during one of several test flights in the area. To make a long story even more unnecessarily longer and completely off topic, the highwaymen were Peace Corps hippies disguised as geishas for an elaborate festival known as Saint Casimir’s Day. We had sausages and drank a local wine made from shoe leather and scuppernongs imported from North Carolina. I remember that the watch I bought from an old sailor had letters from an obscure Asian dialect that only priests and monks were privy. The days were short and the nights were long when we drank that wine. What was the question again?

    That’s a good impression of Bob except of course he would not ask that question at the end.

  214. Keith says:
    February 8, 2013 at 8:13 pm  (Quote)

    Publius:
    I’d like to contribute a resource to the debate.

    Earlier, dictionaries were mentioned.

    Bouvier’s Law Dictionary was written to address the need for an American dictionary of law. Originally published in 1839, it came well before the better-known Black’s.

    There doesn’t seem to be an online copy of the 1839 edition, but there is of the 6th edition, published in 1856. I have copied the 6 pages that would cover such terms as native, natural, natural born, and naturalization into one small file.

    I think the definitions given by Bouvier to some of these terms might be useful in debating the meaning of such terms in early America.

    Here’s the link:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/124565183/Native-and-Natural-from-Bouvier-s-Law-Dictionary-1856

    The full dictionary is of course available online for anyone who wants to confirm that these pages are indeed from the 1856 edition of Bouvier’s Law Dictionary. But since it’s a 45-meg download, I thought I’d make it a bit easier to get just those 6 pages.

    Page 199; right hand column; paragraphs labeled 4 and 5.

  215. Publius says:
    February 8, 2013 at 8:13 pm  (Quote)

    gorefan: Wait, are you saying that you are suppose to do the research before you write the book? That’s a novel idea.

    A novel idea? I thought this was supposed to be non-fiction.

    I’m confused.

  216. Arthur says:
    February 8, 2013 at 8:18 pm  (Quote)

    Majority Will: But in 1968, I picked up a mysterious, glowing rock in the road on the way to Vilnius through Paberžė. We were stopped by police agents who were looking for highwaymen matching our description.

    That’s satire, and you’re mean!

  217. Bob Gard says:
    February 8, 2013 at 8:18 pm  (Quote)

    ballantine: Seriosuly, are you trying to look stupid?England recognized the right to expatriation in 1870, 2 years after we did.Before that, it was a subject to debate in each nation. Prior to that, both nations allowed a partial right to expatriation and we were pretty much on the same page with England after the war of 1812.Can you tell me the rule of Public Law in the early 19th century that England and the United States and pretty much everyone else followed?Why would someone who knows nothing about Public Law post as an expert on the subject?It is really sad, but with each post you look more ignorant than the last.Perhaps you should actually study law before claiming to be an expert as this is getting embarrassing.

    Before the 14th Amendment, how was citizen legally defined? Did we have citizens before then? You are being specious. If the right of expatriation were denied to Americans, show me the impressments undertaken by American authorities.

    “It is now well settled that anyone may renounce his United States citizenship. In 1794 and 1797, many members of Congress still adhered to the English doctrine of perpetual allegiance and doubted whether a citizen could even voluntarily renounce his citizenship. By 1818, however, almost no one doubted the existence of the right of voluntary expatriation.” Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 258 (1967). In 1868, Congress declared that “the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Act of July 27, 1868, ch. 249, 15 Stat. 223, 223 (1868); see also 8 U.S.C. 1481 note (2000) (quoting R.S. 1999) (same).”

    The war of 1812 was about the right to expatriation. America could not stand the impressments. Show me the instances of American ships stopping British vessels and claiming anyone that had been born on American soil of a British father and that had returned to Britain and ended up serving on a British ship. It was Lord Coke who was willing to allow foreigners to naturalize but was not willing to allow British subjects to expatriate.

    Are you divulging to me now that you are a lawyer? Tell me.

  218. gorefan says:
    February 8, 2013 at 8:21 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: Show me the instances of American ships stopping British vessels and claiming anyone that had been born on American soil of a British father and that had returned to Britain and ended up serving on a British ship.

    That may be the stupidest thing you’ve posted yet.

  219. Publius says:
    February 8, 2013 at 8:21 pm  (Quote)

    Keith: Page 199; right hand column; paragraphs labeled 4 and 5.

    I figured someone would notice those two paragraphs. Have you read Bouvier’s definition of naturalized citizen?

  220. ballantine says:
    February 8, 2013 at 8:22 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard:
    I went to the Great Debate and read Dr. Conspiracy’s first question. Here’s my response. Let me know if I am supposed to respond in a different manner directly in the Great Debate. I could not figure out how.

    In the eBook, I did not know of three occurrences of natural-born citizens pointed out to me by Tonchen. I think he found two by way of Greschak, most of whose information had disappeared from the web when I started researching. These two were from Patsall and Spelman who wrote natural born citizens as English translations for Latin phrases. They were incredibly liberal translations, impossible to defend. Then Tonchen found a new one by Eelbeck, also with a faulty translation. I researched as best I could to verify if any of the framers had the translated books in their libraries or had made references to them. I found nothing so I have assumed Jay did not get the term from them. I have recently incorporated this information in my book.

    Madison wrote that a resolution reported by Jefferson in the Continental Congress of 1777 incorporated natural-born citizen. That turned out false. Jay did not get it from that resolution.

    In 1777 a resolution using the term natural born free Citizens was used in the Continental Congress. I believe the term was used linguistically to mean simply citizens born in the destination state to differentiate them from citizens of the other states immigrating into the destination state. The immigrants from the other states were called plain “citizens.” The resolution did not equate the terminology between the two states.

    I knew of a 1785 coded letter between Adams and Jefferson where one term was decoded as natural born Citizens but not with certification.

    Thanks to one of your contributors I have been informed of several uses I did not know about in state acts of naturalization. I have not incorporated them into my eBook yet. I will. Please let me know of others you might be referring to because you used the adverb “frequently.”

    “Was the meaning of that phrase taken from English Common Law, or from some other source, and if so, what?” The answer is no if refering to the Constitution.Jay took his meaning from Vattel. If you mean the meaning in those acts of naturalization, Americans had begun to use citizen to mean subject because they began to dislike a commmon term with England for citizenship. They were creating their own terms and their own law. They were defining themselves.They were withdrawing from English common law. Their use of citizen instead of subject evolved such that they linked the right to expatriation to it. That was the beginning of its separation from subject, which would also separate natural born citizen from natural born subject.

    And this is really a sad post by Bob as it shows how delusional he is. He really can’t admit he was wrong that Jay invented the term. He claims as a fact that Jay got his defintiion form Vattel when he has no evidence at all to support it. What kind of person does that? Or worse, he claims to know the content of dinner talk between 2 people 220 years ago and that Jay confessed his defintion. Again, there is something wrong with anyone who thinks they actually know the specifics of a conversation between two such people without any actual evidence. I guess there were no non-legal things to discuss and there were not a mutiple of issues between England and the United States at the time. Actually, native citizenship was never an area of dispute between the nations as England clearly recognized that all persons born on our soil were natural born citizens. The dispute was with respect to people born on English soil. England maintain the jus soli was the rule of international law.

    Worse yet, Bob’s theory cannot work unless Jay told some framer of his theory which clearly does not appear to be the case. Some secret theory of a non-framer could not impact the drafting of the document. I stand by my Rawle analogy, there seems to be a much more likelihood that Rawle and Washington discussed natural born citizenship than Jay and Scott and such discussion would be much more meaningful since Washington was actually at the Convention. And it isn’t hard to speculate why an English translator in 1797 might use “natural born” in translating Vattel. All one has to do is study the usage of such terms in the period. To think anyone was thinkin about US law, a tiny, insignifigant nation at the time, is not in the reality based world.

    We see that Bob cannot really fight back against real legal arguments, but will never give up as he is deeply committed to find Obama ineligible as all the birther idiots and will never concede any legal point no matter how dumb.

  221. Scientist says:
    February 8, 2013 at 8:23 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: If any of you are interested in buying it for $3, let me know in advance.

    Leave the CD in the usual spot in Rock Creek Park (you know, where you used to leave the codes for Alexii back in the old days). Come back 48 hours later and there will be a brand new crisp $3 bill. This is so much fun reliving the good times.

    Once upon a time there was a tavern
    Where we used to raise a glass or 2….

    Those were the days my friend
    We thought they’d never end
    We’d sing and dance forever and a day
    We’d live the life we choose
    We’d fight and never lose
    Those were the days, oh yes those were the days!

    Great debate by the way….Too many good points to even remember them all

  222. gorefan says:
    February 8, 2013 at 8:23 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: Before the 14th Amendment, how was citizen legally defined?

    I’ve posted that for you previously but as usual it didn’t match your opinion so you ignored it.

    http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F40C13FD3E59157493C2AB1788D85F408584F9

  223. Publius says:
    February 8, 2013 at 8:24 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard:

    Before the 14th Amendment, how was citizen legally defined?

    How timely you should ask at this particular moment. We were just discussing that.

  224. Publius says:
    February 8, 2013 at 8:26 pm  (Quote)

    See also William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States (1825).

  225. Scientist says:
    February 8, 2013 at 8:41 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: The war of 1812 was about the right to expatriation

    That was one of the excuses given. Really, it was a naked attempt to grab Canada, a precursor to the Mexican War, which also was started on false pretenses. Fortunately the brave Canucks fortified by their superior beer, repelled the dastardly invaders, preserving universal health care. Oh, Canada! Glorious and free! We stand on guard for thee!

  226. C. Stanton says:
    February 8, 2013 at 8:46 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: My editor really likes your form of debate. He wanted me to accept your calling my arrests detentions

    Not exactly, Bob. Here are my precise words:

    ———-

    In retrospect, would you please consider that you may have made a poor choice of words and many of your Russian (or other foreign), “arrests” were, in fact, detentions?

    If so, would you please have the good grace to admit that your choice of terms may have been wrong? I’m more than happy—and was already prepared to—comment about how your travelogues at Dr. Conspiracy’s site were verbatim with respect to the other few times I have heard the same accounts from you. You might gain a lot of sympathy if you could back down on this, but only if it’s true. If, indeed, you were arrested, don’t give an inch!

    ———-

    As you then clarified in your email to me and comment here, you do not consider your encounters to have been detentions and, therefore, my advice remains to not “give an inch”.

  227. Paper says:
    February 8, 2013 at 8:46 pm  (Quote)

    You may not have read my other post, but a birther close to me has threatened my life, someone I also once prevented from committing armed domestic violence (unrelated to birtherism). I know a lot of birthers personally, many from my family. Some of them post on the Internet, birther-style, and could conceivably stop by here for all I know.

    (I avoid mentioning/discussing this site to/with them, because I hope to retain my own sanctuary from them, and also to reduce any chance they’ll pick up on this being me, from my writing style, etc.)

    This is beyond the birther murderer others have just mentioned, or Orly Taitz’s litigious ways, or just general badgering/spamming/harassment.

    In addition, I don’t wish my normal life (beyond family circles) to be infected. I protect it zealously from this nonsense.

    Bob Gard: Has there ever been a birther that has commited vicious acts?

  228. ballantine says:
    February 8, 2013 at 8:47 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: Before the 14th Amendment, how was citizen legally defined? Did we have citizens before then? You are being specious. If the right of expatriation were denied to Americans, show me the impressments undertaken by American authorities.

    “It is now well settled that anyone may renounce his United States citizenship. In 1794 and 1797, many members of Congress still adhered to the English doctrine of perpetual allegiance and doubted whether a citizen could even voluntarily renounce his citizenship. By 1818, however, almost no one doubted the existence of the right of voluntary expatriation.” Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 258 (1967).In 1868, Congress declared that “the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Act of July 27, 1868, ch. 249, 15 Stat. 223, 223 (1868); see also 8 U.S.C. 1481 note (2000) (quoting R.S. 1999) (same).”

    The war of 1812 was about the right to expatriation. America could not stand the impressments. Show me the instances of American ships stopping British vessels and claiming anyone that had been born on American soil of a British father and that had returned to Britain and ended up serving on a British ship. It was Lord Coke who was willing to allow foreigners to naturalize but was not willing to allow British subjects to expatriate.

    Are you divulging to me now that you are a lawyer? Tell me.

    Bob Gard: Before the 14th Amendment, how was citizen legally defined? Did we have citizens before then? You are being specious. If the right of expatriation were denied to Americans, show me the impressments undertaken by American authorities.

    “It is now well settled that anyone may renounce his United States citizenship. In 1794 and 1797, many members of Congress still adhered to the English doctrine of perpetual allegiance and doubted whether a citizen could even voluntarily renounce his citizenship. By 1818, however, almost no one doubted the existence of the right of voluntary expatriation.” Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 258 (1967).In 1868, Congress declared that “the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Act of July 27, 1868, ch. 249, 15 Stat. 223, 223 (1868); see also 8 U.S.C. 1481 note (2000) (quoting R.S. 1999) (same).”

    The war of 1812 was about the right to expatriation. America could not stand the impressments. Show me the instances of American ships stopping British vessels and claiming anyone that had been born on American soil of a British father and that had returned to Britain and ended up serving on a British ship. It was Lord Coke who was willing to allow foreigners to naturalize but was not willing to allow British subjects to expatriate.

    Are you divulging to me now that you are a lawyer? Tell me.

    At this point you are embarrassing. In 1826, Kent, in the most influential treatise of the 19th century, said the better view was that we didn’t adopt the right to expatriation as Congress had not declared it in accordance with Blackstone’s common law. Story, the other leading scholar of the period agreed. Our State Department didn’t assert the full right to expatriation until 1858 and Congress didn’t proclaim it until 1868. When Congressman Banks introduced the bill in 1868 ,he was instantly confronted with arguments from the leading scholars in Congress that the United States had never adopted the right of expatriation and that the common law remained in place until Congress said otherwise, exactly according to Blackstone.

    The war of 1812 involved impressment in our territory and upon our ships. The policy of our state deparment, and the rule of public international law, was that peole could expatriate, but would be subject to claims of their native allegiance if they went back to their native country. You can find this in Halleck, Wheaton or Twist or any of the Public writers of the day. Accordingly, the United States had no issue with impressment of our naturalized citizens if they went back to their native land. Impressment on our territory or upon our ships however violated international law. England and the United States agreed on this after 1812 until Secretary of State Cass tool\k a more aggressive position in 1858 that was contrary to the state of Public Law at the time and would lead to more arguments.

    The United States didn’t impress foreigners, but it did draft aliens in the Civil War. All of Europe complained and a compromise was reached. They did draft children of aliens born on our soil and as far as I am aware no exemption was ever made for such persons. Most native born children of aliens were English and even England told such persons they were American citizens. I hope you are taking some notes so you don’t repeat nonsense over and over like all the other birthers who come here. Again, why do you pretend to be an expert on things you know nothings about?

  229. gorefan says:
    February 8, 2013 at 8:54 pm  (Quote)

    C. Stanton: As you then clarified in your email to me and comment here, you do not consider your encounters to have been detentions and, therefore, my advice remains to not “give an inch”.

    Your communicating with Bob by posting a comment here? Weird

  230. C. Stanton says:
    February 8, 2013 at 8:54 pm  (Quote)

    Publius: I think that certainly your experience goes far beyond any kind of encounter that a law-abiding citizen would normally have with police here in the United States, or in any Western European country, for that matter. And on second thought, “arrest” might be a better word for it, particularly given that you were basically interrogated for an entire day.

    Bravo, Publius. You are, indeed, a most gracious opponent.

    I suppose my main point was that it was not the kind of incident in which you were actually imprisoned. I’m not surprised by this kind of police encounter by a Western tourist with Soviet police in that era. But I really don’t have a big problem with you describing it as an “arrest.”

    The term “imprisoned” usually implies a conviction—although that was not always in Soviet Russia—with or without an “arrest”, which was just as often the case, I’m equally sure.

  231. Whatever4 says:
    February 8, 2013 at 8:55 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: Has there ever been a birther that has commited vicious acts? Have the CD sent to one of your friends, to your job or to a PO Box. If any of you are interested in buying it for $3, let me know in advance. I have converted it to PDF but that downgrades the quality of the photos and print substantially.

    I’ve already purchased a used one from Amazon, I’m waiting for the bilzzardcaine/snowpocalypse to end before the mailman can make it.

  232. C. Stanton says:
    February 8, 2013 at 9:01 pm  (Quote)

    gorefan: Your communicating with Bob by posting a comment here? Weird

    First of all, it’s “You’re” (the contraction) and not “Your” (the possessive).

    Second; far be it from you to consider that I might be seeking to provide a bit of clarification for this forum’s benefit. Bob and I do not always agree on everything but we both endeavor to maintain a high degree of personal integrity.

    Perish the thought!

  233. Dave B. says:
    February 8, 2013 at 9:01 pm  (Quote)

    From the CRS Annotated Constitution:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1frag65_user.html

    “The history of the right of expatriation, voluntarily on the part of the citizen or involuntarily under duress of statute, is shadowy in United States constitutional law. Justice Story, in the course of an opinion, and Chancellor Kent, in his writings, accepted the ancient English doctrine of perpetual and unchangeable allegiance to the government of one’s birth, a citizen being precluded from renouncing his allegiance without permission of that government. The pre–Civil War record on the issue is so vague because[p.273]there was wide disagreement on the basis of national citizenship in the first place, with some contending that national citizenship was derivative from state citizenship, which would place the power of providing for expatriation in the state legislatures, and with others contending for the primacy of national citizenship, which would place the power in Congress. The citizenship basis was settled by the first sentence of Sec. 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, but expatriation continued to be a muddled topic. An 1868 statute specifically recognized “the right of expatriation” by individuals, but it was directed to affirming the right of foreign nationals to expatriate themselves and to become naturalized United States citizens. An 1865 law provided for the forfeiture of the “rights of citizenship” of draft–dodgers and deserters, but whether the statute meant to deprive such persons of citizenship or of their civil rights is unclear.”
    (Please allow me to emphasize the obvious, that I am not intending to do anything other than concur with what ballantine said.)

    ballantine: At this point you are embarrassing. In 1826, Kent, in the most influential treatise of the 19th century, said the better view was that we didn’t adopt the right to expatriation as Congress had not declared it in accordance with Blackstone’s common law. Story, the other leading scholar of the period agreed. Our State Department didn’t assert the full right to expatriation until 1858 and Congress didn’t proclaim it until 1868. When Congressman Banks introduced the bill in 1868 ,he was instantly confronted with arguments from the leading scholars in Congress that the United States had never adopted the right of expatriation and that the common law remained in place until Congress said otherwise, exactly according to Blackstone.

  234. gorefan says:
    February 8, 2013 at 9:07 pm  (Quote)

    C. Stanton: Perish the thought!

    Do you know what a shill is in a con game?

  235. C. Stanton says:
    February 8, 2013 at 9:09 pm  (Quote)

    Dave B.:

    Bob Gard: And no one has answered my question–did trial by jury start in England?

    Bob, does insisting on an answer to that question make your argument more persuasive?

    It does if you have any real understanding of the actual extent that British common law had upon America’s nascent legal system.

  236. Whatever4 says:
    February 8, 2013 at 9:11 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: Tell me why these people came to see me then? Tell my why I didn’t receive my rejection letters till after the interviews and after being turned down for a partial scholarship. ? Why do so many like you base their opions on their own experince that was decades after the fact?

    That doesn’t sound right, but I don’t have resources at home to research that. The people who came to see you were most likely local alumni, as that was common back then. My experience was from 1975.

  237. C. Stanton says:
    February 8, 2013 at 9:11 pm  (Quote)

    gorefan: Do you know what a shill is in a con game?

    Quite well. And I also know how seriously to take someone who can’t spell.

  238. gorefan says:
    February 8, 2013 at 9:14 pm  (Quote)

    C. Stanton: It does if you have any real understanding of the actual extent that British common law had upon America’s nascent legal system.

    Is that why Alexander Hamilton said:

    “…where so important a distinction in the Constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived.”

    To which legal system is Hamilton referring? Greek, Roman?

  239. Dave B. says:
    February 8, 2013 at 9:15 pm  (Quote)

    I went to the National Spelling Bee myself, and I wouldn’t take somebody who made a comment like yours very seriously.

    C. Stanton:
    gorefan: Do you know what a shill is in a con game?

    Quite well. And I also know how seriously to take someone who can’t spell.

  240. Dave B. says:
    February 8, 2013 at 9:17 pm  (Quote)

    Such a “real understanding” appears to be the last thing Bob would be in possession of.

    C. Stanton:
    Dave B.:

    Bob Gard: And no one has answered my question–did trial by jury start in England?

    Bob, does insisting on an answer to that question make your argument more persuasive?

    It does if you have any real understanding of the actual extent that British common law had upon America’s nascent legal system.

  241. Majority Will says:
    February 8, 2013 at 9:24 pm  (Quote)

    C. Stanton:
    gorefan: Do you know what a shill is in a con game?

    Quite well. And I also know how seriously to take someone who can’t spell.

    You don’t take seriously anyone who makes a simple spelling error?

    Good to know.

    Then you’ll want to dismiss the person who posted the following above: “If you mean the meaning in those acts of naturalization, Americans had begun to use citizen to mean subject because they began to dislike a commmon (sic) term with England for citizenship.”

  242. Scientist says:
    February 8, 2013 at 9:25 pm  (Quote)

    C. Stanton: It does if you have any real understanding of the actual extent that British common law had upon America’s nascent legal system.

    It seems it’s Bob who lacks that understanding. The US to this day is considered a common law jurisdiction (excpt for Louisiana) as are all the English speaking countries, including the UK, Canada (except Quebec), Australia, India, Kenya, Jamaica and the other English-speaking Caribbean islands, etc.

    As for juries, I’m sure early homo sapiens gathered the group together to resolve disputes. That was a jury.

    By the way, stricty speaking it’s English common law, not British. Scotland had their own.

  243. Andy says:
    February 8, 2013 at 9:27 pm  (Quote)

    C. Stanton:
    gorefan: Your communicating with Bob by posting a comment here? Weird

    First of all, it’s “You’re” (the contraction) and not “Your” (the possessive).

    Incidentally, gorefan’s “your” could also be correct. If he’s just making note of (and questioning) your communicating with Bob by posting here, then “your” is correct.

    In either case, Bob’s arguments don’t hold any water, with or without contractions and possessives.

  244. gorefan says:
    February 8, 2013 at 9:27 pm  (Quote)

    C. Stanton: Quite well.

    Why does that not surprise me.

  245. Dave B. says:
    February 8, 2013 at 9:31 pm  (Quote)

    You know, I’m not surprised that Mike Zullo has demonstrated some rudimentary skill as a forger, myself.
    That just kind of reminds me of that.

    gorefan: Why does that not surprise me.

  246. Majority Will says:
    February 8, 2013 at 9:33 pm  (Quote)

    C. Stanton:
    gorefan: Do you know what a shill is in a con game?

    Quite well. And I also know how seriously to take someone who can’t spell.

    Make sure you also ridicule those who post here who speak and write English as a second or third language. You don’t want to diminish your stellar reputation for tolerance.

  247. Publius says:
    February 8, 2013 at 9:52 pm  (Quote)

    I think I’ll make a feeble attempt to nudge the conversation back onto the actual topic, which wouldn’t really be adventures behind the Iron Curtain, Bob’s admissions and scholarship records at Ivy League (and/ or non Ivy League) universities during the 1960s, the impressment of sailors onto British ships in the War of 1812, the ancient anthropological history of juries, the polite limits of satire, shills, con games, birthers who kill, or “speling.”

    Three separate pieces of evidence have recently been introduced, from prior to the 14th Amendment, that directly refute Bob’s major claim.

    We have the Bouvier Law Dictionary from 1856 (it may well include the same definitions as the 1839 edition, but we don’t know that for sure). That’s a very significant problem. It’s not fatal by itself to Bob’s claim, but it’s at least as good as getting hit in the gut with a baseball bat.

    We have the Opinion of Secretary of State Marcy. That’s a serious problem as well, since Marcy directly contradicts Bob.

    And we also have (and this is devastating to Bob’s thesis) the very clear, unambiguous, direct words of William Rawle, friend of Washington and Franklin and early American legal authority. Add a pickup truck to the baseball bat.

    There are other authorities we could add on top of those. St. George Tucker, for example. Abraham Lincoln’s Attorney General Bates. And don’t think we’re starting to run out.

    The basic problem here is that Bob has brought a chain of weak suppositions and guesses and “I think”s and “let’s connect the dots” to a legal history that we know quite a bit about, in far more certain terms.

    And the far more certain terms, again and again, say clearly: Bob’s idea is wrong.

  248. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:
    February 8, 2013 at 9:52 pm  (Quote)

    Majority Will: Make sure you also ridicule those who post here who speak and write English as a second or third language. You don’t want to diminish your stellar reputation for tolerance.

    Perhaps we should ask Doc how many spelling errors he’s come across in Bob’s book. I found an instance on the website from the editors note of a missing possessive

  249. Thomas Brown says:
    February 8, 2013 at 9:52 pm  (Quote)

    Majority Will: Make sure you also ridicule those who post here who speak and write English as a second or third language. You don’t want to diminish your stellar reputation for tolerance.

    Also, too, some extraordinarily bright folks are dyslexic.

    And those of us writing in from our phones don’t always catch all our typos.

    But I do mock commenters with poor spelling skills who call others stupid, brainwashed, etc. I would forgive it in anyone conversing civilly.

  250. Scientist says:
    February 8, 2013 at 9:52 pm  (Quote)

    Well, this “debate” is going about as well as I expected. Trying to get a straight answer out of Bob is a fool’s errand.

    It doesn’t matter anyway. The election is over. No one realy cares whether Bob accepts the President or not.

    Have a good evening, all.

  251. C. Stanton says:
    February 8, 2013 at 9:53 pm  (Quote)

    gorefan: When did Jay explain his definition of natural born to the Framers? When did the Framers explain their change of the definition of “natural born” to the rest of the country?

    If you managed to visit The Constitutionist, you would see that this point was, at least, partially addressed. As in:

    Please do not expect a proverbial “smoking gun”. It is unreasonable to think there would be one. There is none. Certainly, none has been brought to light over the past few centuries. Time and tides too often ravage even the finest old libraries or collections of personal papers. It is improbable that what was easily a single sheet of hand-inked parchment in the private folio of some colonial framer has survived undiscovered till now.”

    It’s right there on the website’s home page. I should know. I wrote it. While it might not be perfectly apparent from that one short paragraph of mine, the connection is made to a somewhat greater extent for anyone who reads through the Editor’s Comments or the In Depth pages.

    Your questions are an admittedly central point which Bob—at significant personal expense—has taken great pains to address in the eBook itself. He alludes to it in his excerpts from Chapter 10:

    It is my job to prove that natural born citizen was unique to John Jay in terms of its meaning in the U.S. Constitution and there is no reason to look for British roots. One needs to look for roots in the law of nations in general and in The Law of Nations written by Emer de Vattel in particular. Be clear that I do not intend to claim Emer de Vattel devised the term. I mean to say that John Jay either devised it or absconded with the three words from the four-word combination in the 1777 Journals of the Continental Congress if he was aware of its prior use, accessible only in the records of the Continental Congress. I argue that John Jay attached Vattel’s definition for natives and indigenes to his term.

    Albeit, not a precise answer to both of your questions, from my understanding of Bob’s intentions, the ultimate resolution of this question—to whatever extent can be expected—was a central part of his eBook’s argument and one that he had hoped people would purchase his work in order to find out about. In effect, to provide it in advance would have been a serious “spoiler”. At least that is my understanding of the motivations involved. Bob, is free to correct me if I am wrong about this.

  252. Publius says:
    February 8, 2013 at 9:53 pm  (Quote)

    While we’re at it, it might also be good to see some actual debate take place between Bob and Dr. Conspiracy.

  253. C. Stanton says:
    February 8, 2013 at 10:02 pm  (Quote)

    Majority Will: Make sure you also ridicule those who post here who speak and write English as a second or third language.

    For whatever reason? It’s abundantly obvious that gorefan is a native English speaker. Additionally, his last exclamation, “Weird.”, makes it imperative to have used the contraction, regardless of what Andy thinks. Perhaps gorefan will have the courage to admit his own error. Then again…

  254. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:
    February 8, 2013 at 10:02 pm  (Quote)

    Publius:
    While we’re at it, it might also be good to see some actual debate take place between Bob and Dr. Conspiracy.

    I think they should both go on RC radio

  255. Arthur says:
    February 8, 2013 at 10:02 pm  (Quote)

    Publius:
    While we’re at it, it might also be good to see some actual debate take place between Bob and Dr. Conspiracy.

    Yes, it would, wouldn’t it, but I’m not holding my breath.

  256. Dave B. says:
    February 8, 2013 at 10:06 pm  (Quote)

    Has anybody found a bulk discount on irony meters?

    C. Stanton:
    Majority Will: Make sure you also ridicule those who post here who speak and write English as a second or third language.

    For whatever reason? It’s abundantly obvious that gorefan is a native English speaker. Additionally, his last exclamation, “Weird.”, makes it imperative to have used the contraction, regardless of what Andy thinks. Perhaps gorefan will have the courage to admit his own error. Then again…

  257. C. Stanton says:
    February 8, 2013 at 10:06 pm  (Quote)

    Thomas Brown: I would forgive it in anyone conversing civilly.

    As would I.

  258. Andy says:
    February 8, 2013 at 10:09 pm  (Quote)

    C. Stanton:
    Majority Will: Make sure you also ridicule those who post here who speak and write English as a second or third language.

    For whatever reason? It’s abundantly obvious that gorefan is a native English speaker. Additionally, his last exclamation, “Weird.”, makes it imperative to have used the contraction, regardless of what Andy thinks. Perhaps gorefan will have the courage to admit his own error. Then again…

    Your assuming to know gorefan is an native English speaker? That, too, is weird.

    (You’ll note that I’m making reference to your past action, via a gerund.)

  259. Publius says:
    February 8, 2013 at 10:09 pm  (Quote)

    Dave B.: Has anybody found a bulk discount on irony meters?

    Maybe Doc could embed a few software-based meters over on the page labeled “The Great Debate?”

  260. C. Stanton says:
    February 8, 2013 at 10:14 pm  (Quote)

    Publius: While we’re at it, it might also be good to see some actual debate take place between Bob and Dr. Conspiracy.

    While your eagerness to see the fray well and truly entered is perfectly understandable, I am more than content to have Dr. Conspiracy take his time. Especially if it is due to him carefully perusing Bob’s eBook.

    I certainly hope that the good Doctor will avail himself of the abundant resources provided by Publius, Scientist and others. There is no reason to omit legitimate questions solely because others were the first to pose them.

  261. Dave B. says:
    February 8, 2013 at 10:16 pm  (Quote)

    Doc “well and truly entered” the fray hours ago.

    C. Stanton: While your eagerness to see the fray well and truly entered is perfectly understandable, I am more than content to have Dr. Conspiracy take his time.

  262. Publius says:
    February 8, 2013 at 10:19 pm  (Quote)

    Yes, I suppose I should be more patient.

    In the meantime, I might suggest that Bob’s initial response to Dr. C’s question was an answer to the wrong question.

    The Doc wasn’t asking about people using the term “natural born citizen.” He was asking about the many times that the phrase “natural born subject” appeared in legislation in the colonies and states, back before the Constitution was adopted.

  263. Majority Will says:
    February 8, 2013 at 10:19 pm  (Quote)

    Andy: Your assuming to know gorefan is an native English speaker?That, too, is weird.

    (You’ll note that I’m making reference to your past action, via a gerund.)

    Many bigots posting here also assume anti-birther posters are Obama supporters, liberals and Democrats. The truth and cognitive dissonance must be so painful for them.

  264. C. Stanton says:
    February 8, 2013 at 10:23 pm  (Quote)

    Dave B.: Has anybody found a bulk discount on irony meters?

    [PA system announcer]

    Paging Professor John Nerdelbaum Frink, Jr. to the white courtesy phone.

    [/PA system announcer]

  265. Jim says:
    February 8, 2013 at 10:24 pm  (Quote)

    Dave B.:
    Doc “well and truly entered” the fray hours ago.

    Fray? What fray? All I’m seeing is someone who wrote a book about what they “think” might have happened and finding out they don’t know 1/1,000,000th of what they think they know…so now we’ve got his talking head.

    C. Stanton:

    I am more than content to have Dr. Conspiracy take his time. Especially if it is due to him carefully perusing Bob’s eBook.

    I think judging by Bob’s responses you’d better get him onto reading some real history and some real experts from the period and carefully peruse his own book…sounds like he didn’t do a good job the first time around.

  266. Reality Check says:
    February 8, 2013 at 10:25 pm  (Quote)

    I will formally make that offer.

    I would propose a structured debate with an agreed premise for the basis of the debate and equal time for each party without interruption. Frank Arduini made such an offer to debate Obama’s eligibility to a certain commenter here (cough, cough … SCOTT E). He accepted and then chickened out at the last minute. No other Birther has taken up the challenge. I have the rules that were proposed before and can modify them to be mutually acceptable to both Bob Gard and Doctor Conspiracy if they are agreeable.

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: I think they should both go on RC radio

  267. Dave B. says:
    February 8, 2013 at 10:28 pm  (Quote)

    You might want to hang on to that day job. Unless, of course, it’s in editing or website construction.

    C. Stanton:
    Dave B.: Has anybody found a bulk discount on irony meters?

    [PA system announcer]

    Paging Professor John Nerdelbaum Frink, Jr. to the white courtesy phone.

    [/PA system announcer]

  268. Arthur says:
    February 8, 2013 at 10:28 pm  (Quote)

    C. Stanton: I am more than content to have Dr. Conspiracy take his time.

    Has Bob sent his response in an email to Dr. C.? So far, there is only one post in the debate and that’s Doc’s original question. If anyone seems to be taking his time, it’s Bob.

  269. C. Stanton says:
    February 8, 2013 at 10:30 pm  (Quote)

    Dave B.: Doc “well and truly entered” the fray hours ago.

    Cool. I hadn’t checked the locked thread. Obviously, I was in error to have interpreted Publius’ comment as wishing for things to get off of the starting block. That said, you can bet the farm that Bob will answer in earnest.

  270. Dave B. says:
    February 8, 2013 at 10:30 pm  (Quote)

    Well, yeah, that’s true. It ain’t Doc’s fault, though. He held up his end.

    Jim: Fray? What fray? All I’m seeing is someone who wrote a book about what they “think” might have happened and finding out they don’t know 1/1,000,000th of what they think they know…so now we’ve got his talking head.

  271. gorefan says:
    February 8, 2013 at 10:32 pm  (Quote)

    Publius: back before the Constitution was adopted.

    And even after the Constitution was adopted. The last Massachusetts Act of Naturalization used the term NBS in 1791.

  272. gorefan says:
    February 8, 2013 at 10:37 pm  (Quote)

    C. Stanton: Perhaps gorefan will have the courage to admit his own error. Then again…

    I would be happy to admit my error, if you admit that to date your buddy Bob has not answered our questions about his research.

    C. Stanton: you can bet the farm that Bob will answer in earnest.

    Yeah, you said that kind of thing time and again. So far it hasn’t happened.

  273. Arthur says:
    February 8, 2013 at 10:40 pm  (Quote)

    C. Stanton: Cool. I hadn’t checked the locked thread.

    Really? Yesterday you advocated the use of such a thread:

    “As to a closed debate thread, please permit me to suggest the following:

    “Why not run a set of parallel threads? One is closed to the general public and can only be added to by the Doctor or via email from Bob Gard, sent to your choice of address. Another could contain the same material and be open to general comments.”

    Now you say you hadn’t bothered to check it. To quote gorefan, that’s weird.

  274. G says:
    February 8, 2013 at 10:41 pm  (Quote)

    THIS sums up my overall feelings on the matter too.

    As much as I share many of the criticisms that have been directed towards Bob, and as much as I find heavy activity threads going off in millions of directions to be a “hot mess” that is frustrating to keep track of or devote time to replying…

    …I also realize that such activity represents an engaged interest from the community (myself included)….

    …and I actually hope it will continue. We’ve had a lot of Birthers come here over the years. Having a frustrating dodge from dealing with certain pointed questions is nothing new.

    But I very much appreciate the mostly CIVIL discussion that has been going on…and I also recognize that Bob and C. Stanton have put themselves in a situation in which they are overwhelmed with a litany of (mostly critical and sometimes hostile) responses. But hey, that is how an open forum feedback process works.

    I just want to let them both know that I am fully aware that they are here for the intention of trying to sell their product and “ideas”. (no matter how much I personally don’t buy into what they are selling), but I don’t seem to mind in this instance at all, due to what I perceive as their attempt to “reach out” (and not attack), from their POV.

    So YES, I am very much enjoying this…even though most of the conversation is moving too quickly for me to devote the time to chime in on so many parts that I wish to comment on…

    …And so I hope this continues and that it doesn’t degrade into an exercise of utter futility on both sides…as so many prior Birther conversations have in the past.

    While the futile nonsense of Birtherism will always frustrate me, I do completely realize that many people who hold what I consider to be irrational views are otherwise GOOD and INTELLIGENT people in other aspects of their lives. We are all complex people, full of flaws, regrets and “personality quirks” that can drive our motives, world view and interests.

    So I can find myself, in situations like this, disagreeing (or even disliking) certain ideas, activities and/or reactions from a person, YET still find myself starting to better understand and appreciate that person at the same time.

    In summary, to both Bob Gard and C. Stanton – I am glad that you’ve come here. While I agree with much of the flak and viewpoints directed towards you, I also very much appreciate the opportunity to hear from you and your POV and you’ve refreshingly EARNED more respect from me in your efforts here than most Birthers in the past.

    I am glad you two are good friends and are working together and I’m sure that there are many things I would admire and appreciate about each of you as overall people, despite the topics of our disagreement. This has been a maddeningly frustrating and yet fairly engaging and entertaining ride all at the same time. Thank You.

    Publius: I too feel bad that you’ve invested so much time, effort and money into a book that, as far as I can tell, comes to quite a lot of invalid conclusions. Based on my experience with you so far, you frankly seem like a straightforward, decent man. And so does your editor, C. Stanton.

  275. Jim says:
    February 8, 2013 at 10:45 pm  (Quote)

    Reality Check:
    I will formally make that offer.

    First off, I want to thank Bob for coming here, plugging his book, and his willingness to discus it. It has been so much more pleasant than the usual drive-by birthers. Second, and this is for Bob and C Stanton, your grasp of history and our constitution is sorely lacking. You have been given a gold mine of resources here that are far more in depth and to the point than your feeble attempt to link de Vattel with Chief Justice John Jay, Unless/until you can overcome those actual, verifiable, and documented facts, your book is just a work of fiction that just blends in historical data to try and give it more realism…you might as well throw in a duel between Chief Justice Jay and de Vattel to give it a little action too. So Bob, you should decline the debate…you just are not ready.

    Also, thanks to all the folks who have posted resources and historical facts…I always learn something new from you and enjoy it immensely!

  276. BrianH says:
    February 8, 2013 at 10:46 pm  (Quote)

    It suffices to note the various common law reception statutes enacted by Virginia, New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, etc., about the time of Independence to understand the extent the British common law had upon the nascent american legal system.

    C. Stanton It does if you have any real understanding of the actual extent that British common law had upon America’s nascent legal system.

  277. G says:
    February 8, 2013 at 10:50 pm  (Quote)

    Mr. Stanton – First of all, just want to give you a Kudos for earnestly building a new skill. You’ve openly admitted that you are new to website building and clearly seem interested in learning how you can do well at it. Not everybody does (or wants to do) website development…and there are many “professionals” out there with “less than impressive” work in their purported field.

    So, regardless of whether this is the only website you build (when doing such a thing to help a friend is a laudable goal in and of itself) or if you decide to continue pursuing this as a hobby or even side career – KUDOS and good for you for the mere and seemingly sincere effort, in and of itself. I mean that wholeheartedly.

    C. Stanton:
    Publius: You might find WordPress to be a pretty good platform to work with. That’s what this site and a lot of others are built on.

    Again, believe it or not, that was my first instinct as well because I have used it to contribute at other web sites before and could navigate its dashboard fairly well.

    If anyone here has used Go Daddy, then they know just how excruciating it is to work with their primitive tools. Not being a professional web designer, the process of executing Word Press proved rather cumbersome and, since time was of the essence (it being the eleventh hour and all that), this time it was I who decided to forgo that option.

    All I can say is that if constructive comments are sent in, with Bob’s permission, I will do my best to post them conspicuously and set up a pointer atop the home page which links to them. I will also say that there is little doubt as to whether Bob will or won’t approve of this.

  278. G says:
    February 8, 2013 at 10:51 pm  (Quote)

    DITTO!!!

    Jim: Also, thanks to all the folks who have posted resources and historical facts…I always learn something new from you and enjoy it immensely!

  279. C. Stanton says:
    February 8, 2013 at 11:01 pm  (Quote)

    Arthur: Really? Yesterday you advocated the use of such a thread

    And must that, perforce, deny me any possibility of committing an entirely understandable human error?

    By any chance, do you have dangerous quantities of spare time?

  280. Paper says:
    February 8, 2013 at 11:02 pm  (Quote)

    He posted what he called his response above in this thread, saying he couldn’t figure out how to respond to the other one. Probably, he has missed the idea of sending email or using the contact form here.

    Arthur: Has Bob sent his response in an email to Dr. C.? So far, there is only one post in the debate and that’s Doc’s original question. If anyone seems to be taking his time, it’s Bob.

  281. Dave B. says:
    February 8, 2013 at 11:05 pm  (Quote)

    And there went those irony meters again.

    C. Stanton:
    Arthur: Really? Yesterday you advocated the use of such a thread

    And that must, perforce, deny me any possibility of having committed an entirely human error?

    By any chance, do you have dangerous quantities of spare time?

  282. G says:
    February 8, 2013 at 11:07 pm  (Quote)

    Bob, the great thing about America is that as long as you can afford the $40 K on your efforts and the time invested in your “hobby” (without causing too much strain on your family time, financial responsibilities and other obligations), then at least you can feel that you’ve spent your time and money on something that interested you as a “hobby” or generally harmless “way of coping”…and you enjoyed what seems like a deep friendship with Mr. Stanton in the process.

    Regardless of the accuracy of your views or the merits of your work on this book…or the realistic sales market for such an endeavor… or the futility in trying to influence an election…

    Things like personal hobbies, family, friends and stability always matter and are more important to cherish in the long run…

    …so even if we are criticizing and ripping apart your efforts and intentions that you’ve deeply invested your time and effort into – that’s all ok in the end. Blessings to you in the other aspects of your rich life, including the good fortune of family and friends that you have.

    Bob Gard: I was able to raise a family and write two other books. The information I gathered for them was free. I could not spend $40,000 and more than a solid year of research and writing without earning wages at the same time I was raising a family or helping them after they left the nest.

  283. gorefan says:
    February 8, 2013 at 11:15 pm  (Quote)

    C. Stanton: And must that, perforce, deny me any possibility of committing an entirely understandable human error?

    Blahahahaha

    Can you say hypocrite?

  284. G says:
    February 8, 2013 at 11:16 pm  (Quote)

    I viewed this exchange as a healthy and clever tete-a-tete display of humor from both sides and got a good laugh. Well played, both of you! 😉 I find it helps to break up serious (and especially frustrating) periods of debate with some lighthearted quips.

    I’m glad to see that on such a busy thread, others are helping to fill in this vital component, so that our resident talented go-to comedian, Misha, isn’t forced into overtime trying to keep up… 😉

    comment-247039″>C. Stanton:
    Dave B.: Bob broke the internet.

    Well, at least he didn’t claim to have invented it.

  285. G says:
    February 8, 2013 at 11:18 pm  (Quote)

    Indeed. You’ve said it better than I could.

    Arthur: Bob, if you tell me what schools you applied to and when, I would be glad to research their financial aid policies and report back to you. As for why things happened as you describe, I think you’re probably misremembering. This happens all the time, especially when you’re trying to recall events from fifty years ago.

  286. Arthur says:
    February 8, 2013 at 11:22 pm  (Quote)

    C. Stanton: By any chance, do you have dangerous quantities of spare time?

    Nope. But I do have a good memory and a mean streak. Comes in handy sometimes.

  287. Arthur says:
    February 8, 2013 at 11:24 pm  (Quote)

    gorefan: Can you say hypocrite?

    Say it? He edited the e-book. I believe it’s 1,700 pages or something. And not an apostrophe out of place.

  288. Paper says:
    February 8, 2013 at 11:29 pm  (Quote)

    Amen.

    G:
    Bob, the great thing about America is that as long as you can afford the $40 K on your efforts and the time invested in your “hobby” (without causing too much strain on your family time, financial responsibilities and other obligations), then at least you can feel that you’ve spent your time and money on something that interested you as a “hobby” or generally harmless “way of coping”…and you enjoyed what seems like a deep friendship with Mr. Stanton in the process.

    Regardless of the accuracy of your views or the merits of your work on this book…or the realistic sales market for such an endeavor… or the futility in trying to influence an election…

    Things like personal hobbies, family, friends and stability always matter and are more important to cherish in the long run…

    …so even if we are criticizing and ripping apart your efforts and intentions that you’ve deeply invested your time and effort into – that’s all ok in the end.Blessings to you in the other aspects of your rich life, including the good fortune of family and friends that you have.

  289. gorefan says:
    February 8, 2013 at 11:39 pm  (Quote)

    Publius: Abraham Lincoln’s Attorney General Bates

    Bates’ 1858 opinion on citizenship became a standard reference. It was cited in George Washington Paschal’s 1868 treatise on the Constitution – “The Constitution of the United States Defined and Carefully Annotated” and again in Alexander Porter Morse’s 1881 treatise on citizenship – “A Treatise on Citizenship: By Birth and by Naturalization”

    “The Constitution itself does not make the citizens, (it is, in fact,made by them.) It only intends and recognizes such of them as are natural—home-born—and provides for the naturalization of such of them as were alien—foreign-born—making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former.”

  290. G says:
    February 8, 2013 at 11:55 pm  (Quote)

    In addition to the example you read from Dr. C and the others mentioned (Charles Dyer for example), there are endless painfully personal family situations that have resulted from Birtherism and similar ODS-inciting movements. Paper mentioned his. A number of us (Rich Cares comes to mind) and myself have shared similar personal tales in the past.

    Plus there is a litany of vile and beyond-the-pale threats and statements made on a daily basis on various Birther and RW websites and twitter.

    Check out viletweets.com sometime. Such behavior is the antithesis of good citizenship or patriotism and comes from a place of dark and cancerous personal immaturity and has no valid defense. Worse, tolerance or encouragement of such shameful acts only serves to degrade society as a whole and is a mechanism that leads to justification and incitement in the already unhinged to “snap” and cross the line into actions that cause harm to themselves, their families and often innocents.

    As mentioned, this has happened already with documented Birthers such as Charles Dyer (child rapist and wannabe domestic terrorist) and James von Brunn (Holocaust Museum shooter) . But sadly, they were not the only ones.

    A few other Birthers who crossed that line and ended up as tragic news stories include:

    Joseph Sean McVey (OH, 2010) – attempted domestic terrorism
    Wayne Lynn Kurt (WA, 2010) – attempted domestic terrorism
    William Mattison (TX, 2010) – jailed for threats against the President
    Stephen McDaniel (GA, 2011) – ended up dismembering a woman

    Then of course, there are the convictions of well-known Birthers such as Walter Fitzpatrick, Darren Huff and Terry Lakin… all due to stupid actions of their own making, brought on by their Birther folly.

    So yeah, while your ODS BIrtherism “hobby” has taken a fairly harmless venting route… I hope you can reflect a bit and see why many of us still see the entire pursuit as not just irrationally wasteful but also potentially an incitement to those who are less “stable” than folks such as yourself.

    Bob Gard: Has there ever been a birther that has commited vicious acts?

    Dr. Conspiracy: Yes, there was a birther murderer.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/06/museum-guard-slain-by-white-supremacist-birther/

  291. C. Stanton says:
    February 9, 2013 at 12:01 am  (Quote)

    Publius: Based on my experience with you so far, you frankly seem like a straightforward, decent man. And so does your editor, C. Stanton.

    Thank you, Publius. Your summation certainly fits my own opinion of Bob Gard and I sincerely appreciate the good will that you demonstrate in making such a statement. Especially amidst such a sea of disapproval, if not outright calumny, that seems to dominate here. Your refusal to be swept along by the riptides of this board’s abusive undercurrent is laudable in the extreme.

    While you only have my word for it, Bob is one of the more compassionate human beings that I have met in many years. No small thing when his intolerance for the pervasive BS that permeates our modern society is taken into account.

    I know that my last sentence will likely trigger an avalanche of derision from Bob’s detractors so let’s hope that, just this once, they might possibly restrain themselves (as if!).

    Again, compassion is no measure of capacity with respect to logic and reason, nor should it be (insert another appeal for restraint >here<). Please, also be advised that, to find myself so vigorously asserting this fact is slightly ironic (restraint, please) considering how frequently I attribute such energetic, wholly counter-productive and overly compassionate behavior (unlike Bob's), to Liberals with their marked propensity for Magical Thinking™ (warning: link to Canadian Free Press article).

    I wonder if you can imagine how, even at supposedly “conservative” websites, I have encountered the same ad hominem attacks that are so popular here. That said, I have nothing but admiration for your particular style and commend such willingness to perceive decency where so many others seem to overlook it. Again, thank you.

  292. Whatever4 says:
    February 9, 2013 at 12:04 am  (Quote)

    C. Stanton:
    gorefan: Do you know what a shill is in a con game?

    Quite well. And I also know how seriously to take someone who can’t spell.

    I’ve become more lenient on spelling mistakes since the advent of Autocorrect.

  293. misha marinsky says:
    February 9, 2013 at 12:20 am  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: Has there ever been a birther that has commited vicious acts?

    Apropos: http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/28/church.shooting/

    Man admits church shooting, says liberals should die

    A man accused of fatally shooting two adults and wounding seven others at a Knoxville church told police the church’s liberal teachings prompted him to attack…

    Jim David Adkisson told investigators all liberals should be killed and admitted he shot people Sunday morning at Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church…

    According to the affidavit requesting to search Adkisson’s home, the suspect told investigators liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country. Adkisson also blamed Democrats for the country’s decline, according to the affidavit.

    “He felt that the Democrats had tied his country’s hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of major media outlets,” the affidavit said. “Because he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement … he would then target those that had voted them into office.”

  294. G says:
    February 9, 2013 at 12:21 am  (Quote)

    Ok… I’m very confused at what sort of warped-reality projection you are slinging here…

    The Canadian Free Press article is a RWNJ loony-tunes conspiracy piece of bizarre fantasy fiction.

    NOT a real thing. NOT a “liberal” thing either.

    Birtherism is rife with “Magical Thinking”. Although there are examples of such folly on the left fringes, “Magical Thinking” seems to happen quite often on the right side of the political spectrum these days…

    I clearly challenge you to specify any “Magical Thinking” (that isn’t mere satire) from the non-Birthers on this forum…

    ..And again, please finally get it through your over-generalizing mind that there are a lot of “anti-Birthers” contributing and criticizing you here that are not liberals at all. You’ve lost perspective and you need to take your own blinders off.

    C. Stanton: Please, also be advised that, to find myself so vigorously asserting this fact is slightly ironic (restraint, please) considering how frequently I attribute such energetic, wholly counter-productive and overly compassionate behavior (unlike Bob’s), to Liberals with their marked propensity for Magical Thinking™ (warning: link to Canadian Free Press article).

  295. JRC says:
    February 9, 2013 at 12:37 am  (Quote)

    In very limited defense of Mr. Gard. I did get letters from different Universities offering me scholarships if I applied to their school. Had plenty of recruiters call and visit, but none of those ever offered anything, so not in Mr. Gard’s defense there. I’m a bit younger, but no recruiter, and I had plenty that called me.

    Sorry that didn’t come out right. I applied for the different colleges, and after that they offered a number of scholarships.

  296. misha marinsky says:
    February 9, 2013 at 12:39 am  (Quote)

    C. Stanton: Bob is one of the more compassionate human beings that I have met in many years. No small thing when his intolerance for the pervasive BS that permeates our modern society is taken into account.

    Every conservative I have met is callous. In college, I was active in SVdeP. They were all social liberals, and all voted Democratic.

    Conservative and compassionate are mutually exclusive.

  297. misha marinsky says:
    February 9, 2013 at 12:42 am  (Quote)

    G: The Canadian Free Press article is a RWNJ loony-tunes conspiracy piece of bizarre fantasy fiction.

    The entire Canadian Free Press is a RWNJ loony-tunes site.

  298. aesthetocyst says:
    February 9, 2013 at 12:46 am  (Quote)

    C. Stanton:
    Dave B.: Bob broke the internet.

    Well, at least he didn’t claim to have invented it.

    Nor was he a key player in encouraging the funding for the research that lead to it.

  299. Dave B. says:
    February 9, 2013 at 12:52 am  (Quote)

    For just plain low down and dirty, I’d nominate Bob’s “brilliant” Dr. Corsi. And he might not neatly fit one of Bob’s eight categories of birthers, but Joel Gilbert is as despicable as they come.

    Bob Gard: Has there ever been a birther that has commited vicious acts?

  300. aesthetocyst says:
    February 9, 2013 at 12:54 am  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: I was able to raise a family and write two other books. The information I gathered for them was free. I could not spend $40,000 and more than a solid year of research and writing without earning wages at the same time I was raising a family or helping them after they left the nest. If you believe that there were real experts, why are there disparate court decisions on the subject and such varied views? Have you undertaken such a research project for anything? Were you by chance the one who coined ” if my aunt had. . .she’d be my uncle.”

    Right. Again the victim complex over having voluntarily and pointlessly (and supposedly!) expended 40 large. Whatever you spent was your misguided choice Bob.

    Yes, I have engaged in numerous research efforts, and am currently in the development phase of an effort to bring the fruits of 8 years of testing and proofing to the public. A lifelong passion. We have at least that much in common.

    You dodged both questions Bob. Again:

    1. How is McCain ineligible for the Presidency? How is he not NBC?

    2. Why, specifically, as you had reached your ‘unique’ understanding 40 years prior, were you not active on this topic in 2000?

  301. aesthetocyst says:
    February 9, 2013 at 12:58 am  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: until the supply runs out?

    Publish electronically, and you’ll never have to worry about supply again. And eliminate the overhead of physical production and shipping! It’ll be like found money Bob. Truly passive income.

    If there is any income.

  302. Paper says:
    February 9, 2013 at 1:00 am  (Quote)

    Per that Canada Free press article’s talk of so-called leftist magical thinking:

    “One of the chief characteristics of Magical Thinking is a denial of the principles of science.”

    Compare and contrast with the Pew Research Center (scroll down for numbers on partisanship):

    Scientists are: Liberal 52%, Moderate 35%, Conservative 9%; Democratic 55%, Independent 32%, Republican 6%.

    http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/public-praises-science-scientists-fault-public-media/

    C. Stanton:

    …considering how frequently I attribute such energetic, wholly counter-productive and overly compassionate behavior (unlike Bob’s), to Liberals with their marked propensity for Magical Thinking™ (warning: link to Canadian Free Press article)….

  303. Rickey says:
    February 9, 2013 at 1:00 am  (Quote)

    Arthur: Bob, if you tell me what schools you applied to and when, I would be glad to research their financial aid policies and report back to you.As for why things happened as you describe, I thinkyou’re probably misremembering. This happens all the time, especially when you’re trying to recall events from fifty years ago.

    I trust that you are not holding your breath waiting for Bob’s response. He has now been asked several times to clarify his timeline about when he applied for college and he has pointedly failed to respond.

    I suspect that he has not responded because the true timeline clashes with his claim that he was a victim of affirmative action. We know that he graduated high school in 1965 and we know that he was in Europe in June, 1969. That is consistent with someone who entered college in September, 1965 and graduated in May, 1969. If Bob’s college rejections occurred in 1965 they couldn’t possibly have had anything to do with affirmative action since no colleges were using affirmative action then (and Princeton didn’t accept any female students until 1969).

    The Terry Lakin Action Fund website states “Bob Gard holds a degree in Political Science and is an author. After completing college he traveled through 120 countries on a dollar a day and became fluent in three languages.” [emphasis added}

    http://www.terrylakinactionfund.com/tlafradio/169-tlafradio20121008a.html

    So it looks like Bob did indeed get his degree in 1969 (although he refuses to tell us where he went to college), which if true means that his sad story about being crushed by affirmative action is a total fabrication.

    I’m willing to change my opinion if I am proven to be wrong, but Bob needs to come clean first.

  304. misha marinsky says:
    February 9, 2013 at 1:06 am  (Quote)

    Rickey: After completing college he traveled through 120 countries on a dollar a day and became fluent in three languages.

    English and Pig Latin. What’s the third?

  305. JRC says:
    February 9, 2013 at 1:11 am  (Quote)

    Paper: e) #
    You may not have read my other pos

    Know the feeling. Lost a friend because she wants to be willfully ignorant. But my family is worse.

  306. misha marinsky says:
    February 9, 2013 at 1:12 am  (Quote)

    Rickey: Bob needs to come clean first.

    Bob is a pathological liar, which is why he can’t. He’s beyond drunk braggart with a fetid imagination.

  307. G says:
    February 9, 2013 at 1:18 am  (Quote)

    Way to counter one over-generalization with a flip-side over-generalization…

    As I’ve said many times to you, I’m sorry for your personal negative experiences, but I think you too suffer from allowing your personal traumas to cloud your perspective to such an unrealistic black-and-white oversimplification of humanity. It does not serve you well.

    *sigh*

    misha marinsky: Every conservative I have met is callous. In college, I was active in SVdeP. They were all social liberals, and all voted Democratic.

    Conservative and compassionate are mutually exclusive.

  308. Rickey says:
    February 9, 2013 at 1:21 am  (Quote)

    C. Stanton:

    While you only have my word for it, Bob is one of the more compassionate human beings that I have met in many years. No small thing when his intolerance for the pervasive BS that permeates our modern society is taken into account.

    Pardon my skepticism, but my BS meter is telling me that Bob is full of it.

    I am still trying to figure out how he could have been a “victim” of affirmative action when no college or university was using affirmative action in admissions when Bob graduated high school in 1965. He claims that he was denied a scholarship to Princeton because it was given to an unqualified woman, but Princeton did not accept female students until 1969, when Bob was in Europe or Africa. The Terry Lakin Action Fund website says that Bob got a degree in political science and that he traveled to 120 countries after completing college, That sounds to me that he graduated college in 1969. He says that he wanted to study mathematics, but he got a degree in political science. How does that compute?

    I would not consider buying Bob’s book without first getting some clarification about his credentials. I am not interesting in buying a book by someone who is not candid about his background. So how about some straightforward answers to some straightforward questions?

    1. What year did Bob apply to the six colleges/universities which turned him down?

    2. Does Bob really have a degree in political science? If so, where did he earn the degree and when did he graduate?

    These are simple questions which should be simple to answer.

  309. JRC says:
    February 9, 2013 at 1:26 am  (Quote)

    C. Stanton:
    Dave B.:

    Bob Gard: And no one has answered my question–did trial by jury start in England?

    Bob, does insisting on an answer to that question make your argument more persuasive?

    It does if you have any real understanding of the actual extent that British common law had upon America’s nascent legal system.

    No it did not. People have answered the question. I’ll repeat an answer that in Greece there was such a thing. The Vikings also had such a thing that seems to be a possible reason that the English adopted it, and those evil evil Islamic people even had such rule. Way before Vattel’s time if that was supposed to be the point of the question.

  310. aesthetocyst says:
    February 9, 2013 at 1:26 am  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: I have converted it to PDF but that downgrades the quality of the photos and print substantially.

    It doesn’t have to. Do you need help with your files, sir?

    Er, I guess I should ask whether you are willing to accept help?

  311. aesthetocyst says:
    February 9, 2013 at 1:34 am  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: Has there ever been a birther that has commited vicious acts?

    I am compelled to mention Okieland’s finest, Charles A. Dyer. Birther, Tea Partier, ‘Oathkeeper’, sovcit, agitator, child molester, weapons fetishist.

    Don’t trust any source I might name, give him a Google … he’s everywhere!!

  312. G says:
    February 9, 2013 at 1:34 am  (Quote)

    Yeah, the entire “Magical Thinking” artilcle on CFP is nothing but fictional straw-man cr@p from certain limited regressive minds that can’t comprehend how others think, beyond projecting their own failed word view onto others.

    Seriously, the whole simplistic “hero worship” and need to ascribe near-divinity to leaders or enemies is something that seems to come nearly exclusively from the right.

    As to the other bizarre views of economics, global warming, etc… it all is a fictional “empty chair” view of what these regressives tell themselves that others think…which has very little connection to what people in other parts of the spectrum ever say or think at all.

    Such a silly article only appeals to those who seek petty comfort in their fiction and who lack the courage to actually talk to people perceived as “outside of their tribe” to actually find out what they think and why they think that way. No, the cowardice of regressiveness has to hide behind projecting its own petty failings onto its perceived “enemies” so it can maintain seeing them as “enemies”…instead of facing real dialogue or learning beyond their own shallow myopic limitations…

    Fear-driven irrationality is a weakness. I have no respect for minds that need to create bogus bogeymen to shroud their own insecurities and personal failings…

    Paper:
    Per that Canada Free press article’s talk of so-called leftist magical thinking:

    “One of the chief characteristics of Magical Thinking is a denial of the principles of science.”

    Compare and contrast with the Pew Research Center (scroll down for numbers on partisanship):

    Scientists are:Liberal 52%, Moderate 35%, Conservative 9%;Democratic 55%, Independent 32%, Republican 6%.

    http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/public-praises-science-scientists-fault-public-media/

  313. JRC says:
    February 9, 2013 at 1:41 am  (Quote)

    Reality Check:
    I will formally make that offer.

    I would propose a structured debate with an agreed premise for the basis of the debate and equal time for each party without interruption. Frank Arduini made such an offer to debate Obama’s eligibility to a certain commenter here (cough, cough … SCOTT E). He accepted and then chickened out at the last minute. No other Birther has taken up the challenge. I have the rules that were proposed before and can modify them to be mutually acceptable to both Bob Gard and Doctor Conspiracy if they are agreeable.

    I’m there as long as I’m not at the casino. I was so ready for last night….Hope you are feeling better. Still ticked that you didn’t let Dr. Ken have a show.

  314. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:
    February 9, 2013 at 1:50 am  (Quote)

    JRC: I’m there as long as I’m not at the casino.I was so ready for last night….Hope you are feeling better.Still ticked that you didn’t let Dr. Ken have a show.

    No it wasn’t his fault. It’s hard to do it without a co-host and don’t feel I can carry the show by myself

  315. aesthetocyst says:
    February 9, 2013 at 1:57 am  (Quote)

    Rickey: The Terry Lakin Action Fund website says that Bob got a degree in political science and that he traveled to 120 countries after completing college, That sounds to me that he graduated college in 1969.

    Don’t forget, Gard supposedly published his government-imploding thesis in 1970 …. as an attempt to prove it could be done w/o the benefit of formal undergraduate or graduate education!

    What a tangled web Bob weaves.

  316. JRC says:
    February 9, 2013 at 1:59 am  (Quote)

    aesthetocyst: It doesn’t have to. Do you need help with your files, sir?

    Er, I guess I should ask whether you are willing to accept help?

    Not sure Bob is a PDF forgery guy….yeah I think he is. Wow, so converting from one format to another might degrade something. I’m shocked. Doesn’t make it a forgery though. lol

  317. JRC says:
    February 9, 2013 at 2:05 am  (Quote)

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: No it wasn’t his fault.It’s hard to do it without a co-host and don’t feel I can carry the show by myself

    Come on Dr. Ken. You can do it. Love RC, but it’s not like we would listen if you hosted the show. Of couse, it might be more difficult for you screening callers and all that. Anyway, hope you guys have a show Tuesday.

  318. JRC says:
    February 9, 2013 at 2:10 am  (Quote)

    misha marinsky: Every conservative I have met is callous. In college, I was active in SVdeP. They were all social liberals, and all voted Democratic.

    Conservative and compassionate are mutually exclusive.

    Misha, hope to meet you one day. I’d blow your mind, and maybe you’d rethink that idea in your head.

  319. JRC says:
    February 9, 2013 at 2:12 am  (Quote)

    JRC: Come on Dr. Ken.You can do it.Love RC, but it’s not like we would listen if you hosted the show. Of couse, it might be more difficult for you screening callers and all that.Anyway, hope you guys have a show Tuesday.

    Meant to say that it’s not like we wouldn’t listen. 🙂 Sorry.

  320. JRC says:
    February 9, 2013 at 2:20 am  (Quote)

    aesthetocyst: Don’t forget, Gard supposedly published his government-imploding thesis in 1970 …. as an attempt to prove it could be done w/o the benefit of formal undergraduate or graduate education!

    What a tangled web Bob weaves.

    That is a pretty spider web there.

  321. Lupin says:
    February 9, 2013 at 3:23 am  (Quote)

    In re Bob Gard and C. Stanton, according to Atrios, the paradigm for this new century seems to be: idiots or liars? We used to say: fool or knave?

  322. Lupin says:
    February 9, 2013 at 3:31 am  (Quote)

    As many people know, in the original French version (as written down by Charles Perrault), Cinderella does not wear a glass slipper but a velvet one.

    The confusion stems for a bad translation that confused the original word “vair” (velvet) with “verre” (glass), two homophones.

    If wearing glass footwear was a precondition to being eligible for the presidency in the US, any serious discussion by folks like Apuzzo and Bob Gard that would quote Perrault and use his story to discredit your President would be absurd: it would be enough to check the French text to realize that “vair” meant velvet, not glass.

    Maybe folks could blame Disney, but certainly not Perrault.

    We have the same situation with the grotesquely ignorant opinion being held by Bob Gard (and Mario Apuzzo amongst others) who visibly failed to read & understand the meaning of the original text.

    Since either him or C. Stanton have totally failed to respond to three separate posts on the topic, I don’t expect any “progress” on the matter, just maybe a little more honesty.

  323. misha marinsky says:
    February 9, 2013 at 3:54 am  (Quote)

    JRC: Misha, hope to meet you one day.I’d blow your mind, and maybe you’d rethink that idea in your head.

    Boehner: ‘Not my job’ to convince skeptics on Obama birth and religion

    John Boehner says on ‘Meet the Press’ he believes President Obama is a Christian and an American: ‘I’ll take him at his word.’ But he won’t try to convince skeptical Americans.

    “I believe that the president is a citizen. I believe the president is a Christian. I’ll take him at his word,” said Boehner (R-Ohio), appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

    “As speaker of the House, as a leader, do you not think it’s your responsibility to speak out against that kind of ignorance?” asked the host, David Gregory.

    “It’s not my job to tell the American people what to think,” Boehner said. “The American people have the right to think what they want to think.”

    http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/14/nation/la-na-boehner-obama-birth-20110214

  324. Bob Gard says:
    February 9, 2013 at 4:11 am  (Quote)

    aesthetocyst: Right. Again the victim complex over having voluntarily and pointlessly (and supposedly!) expended 40 large. Whatever you spent was your misguided choice Bob.

    Yes, I have engaged in numerous research efforts, and am currently in the development phase of an effort to bring the fruits of 8 years of testing and proofing to the public. A lifelong passion. We have at least that much in common.

    You dodged both questions Bob. Again:

    1.How is McCain ineligible for the Presidency? How is he not NBC?

    2. Why, specifically, as you had reached your ‘unique’ understanding 40 years prior, were you not active on this topic in 2000?

    He was born outside American soil. The Panama Canal was controlled by America under treaty. It was not owned by America and accepted into statehood. The treaty had an expiration date. Prior candidates who were born in territories before they were states were not eligible either. This is based on my conclusion that Jay followed 212. “. . . in the country.”

  325. Majority Will says:
    February 9, 2013 at 4:21 am  (Quote)

    C. Stanton:
    Majority Will: Make sure you also ridicule those who post here who speak and write English as a second or third language.

    For whatever reason? It’s abundantly obvious that gorefan is a native English speaker. Additionally, his last exclamation, “Weird.”, makes it imperative to have used the contraction, regardless of what Andy thinks. Perhaps gorefan will have the courage to admit his own error. Then again…

    I wasn’t referring to gorefan. Hence the use of the word also. You skipped my first comment which referred to Bob Gard’s spelling error. Irony is abundant here as evident by your mistakes as well.

    And you sure do whine a lot. Did you know that?

  326. JRC says:
    February 9, 2013 at 4:24 am  (Quote)

    misha marinsky: Boehner: ‘Not my job’ to convince skeptics on Obama birth and religion

    John Boehner says on ‘Meet the Press’ he believes President Obama is a Christian and an American: ‘I’ll take him at his word.’ But he won’t try to convince skeptical Americans.

    “I believe that the president is a citizen. I believe the president is a Christian. I’ll take him at his word,” said Boehner (R-Ohio), appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

    “As speaker of the House, as a leader, do you not think it’s your responsibility to speak out against that kind of ignorance?” asked the host, David Gregory.

    “It’s not my job to tell the American people what to think,” Boehner said. “The American people have the right to think what they want to think.”

    http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/14/nation/la-na-boehner-obama-birth-20110214

    I’m not Boehner, but I’m am a Conservative. I’m not a neo-con though. Maybe not as compassionate as some, but not cold hearted as you seem to think we are. I believe in separation of church and state. Not because the church is bad, but because we have a duty as a society to help our fellow man. I don’t need a religion to tell me that. I don’t need a government to tell me that either. Can’t stand the GOP, but can’t stand the Democrats either. Trust me I’ve feed, clothed and tried to help when I could, friend, family and stranger. Just don’t lump us all together with the elites, as I don’t lump everyone struggling for whatever reason as takers. That tactic is a failed tactic. We are a society. To succeed we need everyone to do the best they can, and help those that are down. Not saying we need to support everyone, just give a helping hand.

  327. Majority Will says:
    February 9, 2013 at 4:29 am  (Quote)

    misha marinsky:

    Conservative and compassionate are mutually exclusive.

    Perhaps in your experience but not mine.

  328. Majority Will says:
    February 9, 2013 at 4:32 am  (Quote)

    JRC: I’m not Boehner, but I’m am a Conservative.I’m not a neo-con though.Maybe not as compassionate as some, but not cold hearted as you seem to think we are.I believe in separation of church and state.Not because the church is bad, but because we have a duty as a society to help our fellow man.I don’t need a religion to tell me that.I don’t need a government to tell me that either.Can’t stand the GOP, but can’t stand the Democrats either.Trust me I’ve feed, clothed and tried to help when I could, friend, family and stranger.Just don’t lump us all together with the elites, as I don’t lump everyone struggling for whatever reason as takers.That tactic is a failed tactic. We are a society.To succeed we need everyone to do the best they can, and help those that are down.Not saying we need to support everyone, just give a helping hand.

    Well said. Thanks.

  329. Bob Gard says:
    February 9, 2013 at 4:32 am  (Quote)

    JRC: No it did not.People have answered the question.I’ll repeat an answer that in Greece there was such a thing.The Vikings also had such a thing that seems to be a possible reason that the English adopted it, and those evil evil Islamic people even had such rule.Way before Vattel’s time if that was supposed to be the point of the question.

    I have seen articles that mentioned there might have been a sort of trial by jury in ancient times but not with the same construct as England’s and ours.I was looking for someone to cite Blackstone because I was criticized for not knowing Blackstone. The following is from my eBook:

    One of the reasons that Amendment VIII was added to the Constitution to prohibit cruel and unusual punishment was the frequency of cases like the one being described. As Adams pointed out, smuggling a few wine casks had depreciated British tax revenue by a hundred pounds. By demanding the loss of the sloop itself and the imposition of a thousand-pound fine to Hancock, Adams concluded that such a sentence would “be a great disproportion between the crime and punishment.” It would be proportionately more severe than any of the statues involving rape, robbery, murder, or treason and, therefore, the Admiralty court presented a threat to the rights of Englishmen by its unjustified power. “Thus, these extraordinary penalties and forfeitures are to be heard and tried—how? Not by a jury, not by the law of the land, but by the civil law and a single judge.”

    This stance was adopted by all patriotic American politicians, including John Jay. To a man, they believed as Adams, who insisted by quoting Lord Coke that trial by jury was one of the most critical of the colonies’ English heritage. . . .

    In the original papers, there were footnotes strewn everywhere. It is here that a very important footnote was included: Commentaries, Bk. III, ch. 23, p. 381. The issue of jury trials in Sweden was referred to by others during the ratification debates. I have three editions from different years for the four volumes of Blackstone. In my George Sharswood’ edition (1893) on page 348 appears Chapter XXIII, “Of the Trial by Jury,” in which Blackstone clearly stated that the invention of trial by jury was not British:

    “The subject of our next inquiries will be the nature and method of the trial by jury; called also the trial per pais [in Spanish “country”], or by the country: a trial that hath been used time out of mind in this nation, and seems to have been coeval with the first civil government thereof. Some authors have endeavoured to trace the original of juries up as high as the Britons themselves, the first inhabitants of our island; but certain it is that they were in use among the earliest Saxon colonies, their institution being ascribed by bishop Nicholson [De jure Saxonum, p. 12] to Woden himself, their great legislator and captain. Hence it is, that we may find traces of juries in the laws of all those nations which adopted the feodal system, as in Germany, France, and Italy; who had all of them a tribunal composed of twelve good men and true, ‘boni homines,’ usually the vassals or tenants of the lord, being the equals or peers of the parties litigant; and, as the lord’s vassals judged each other in the lord’s courts, so the king’s vassals, or the lords themselves, judged each other in the king’s court. [Sp. L. b. 30, c. 18. Capitul. Lud. pii. A.D. 819. C. 2] In England we find actual mention of them so early as the laws of king Ethelred, and that not as a new invention. [Wilk. LL. Angl. Sax. 117.] Stiernhook [De jure Sueonum, l. 1. c. 4.] ascribes the invention of the jury, which in the Teutonic language is denominated nembda, to Regner, king of Sweden and Denmark, who was cotemporary with our king Egbert. Just as we are apt to impute the invention of this, and some other pieces of judicial polity, to the superior genius of Alfred the Great; to whom, on account of his having done much, it is usual to attribute every thing; and as the tradition of antient Greece placed to the account of their own Hercules whatever achievement was performed superior to the ordinary prowess of mankind. Whereas the truth seems to be, that this tribunal was universally established among all the northern nations, and so interwoven in their very constitution, that the earliest accounts of the one give us also some traces of the other.1 Its establishment however and use, in this island, of what date soever it be, though for a time greatly impaired and shaken by the introduction of the Norman trial by battle, was always so highly esteemed and valued by the people, that no conquest, no change of government, could ever prevail to abolish it. In magna carta it is more than once insisted on as the principal bulwark of our liberties; but especially by chap. 29, that no freeman shall be hurt in either his person or property; ‘nisi per legale judicium parium suorum vel per legem terrӕ.’ A privilege which is couched in almost the same words with that of the emperor Conrad, two hundred years before: ‘nemo beneficium suum perdat, nisi secundum consuetudinem antecessorum nostrorum et per judicium parium suorum.’ And it was ever esteemed in all countries, a privilege of the highest and most beneficial nature.

    1. The Athenians, according to Sir Wm. Jones, had trials by jury. Sir Wm. Jones on Bailment, 74.—-CHITTY.”

    George Sharswood was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    I would bet, if I walked into the U.S. Supreme Court of the United States today and asked where “trial by jury” came from, I wouldn’t get many correct answers. In fact, I’m not sure I would get one correct answer. I have not met a single person in my lifetime that didn’t think that we inherited jury by trial from England. I too thought we had until two years ago

  330. JRC says:
    February 9, 2013 at 4:39 am  (Quote)

    And yes, I think you have to be responsible for your choices. Not saying that you are bound by those choices, just responsible. And many times that falls on the lower class. There was a show on TLC, I believe, called 16 and counting. Sorry, but if they are or were collecting taxpayer money for those kids I have a problem with that. I think that is an abuse of our contract as a society. Maybe we can talk on RC radio sometime.

  331. JRC says:
    February 9, 2013 at 4:48 am  (Quote)

    And next time I call in I’m hoping I won’t say “you know”, “umm”, and “like” as much as I have in the past. I just get really nervous. Anyway I believe that guy that has all those kids was a politician, and basically gets free health care for have family which upsets me quite a bit. Honestly, if you serve, I respect that, but you shouldn’t be paid for life, and get free health care for life.

  332. aesthetocyst says:
    February 9, 2013 at 4:51 am  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: He was born outside American soil.

    Thank you, Bob, for answering, and clarifying that you require satisfaction of jus soli and “ius duo sanguines” when considering Presidential candidates.

    But now you have introduced more difficulties. If children born under US jurisdiction but not within a state are not natural born citizens, then they would have to be naturalized. When does this happen? Or are you introducing a third class of citizenship, not found in the Constitution or anywhere in the American experience, of citizens at birth that are not somehow ‘natural born’ citizens? Unnaturally born, perhaps?

    Are you really intent on telling the men and women serving this country in diplomatic, military, and civilian roles overseas in territories and on bases that any children that happen to be born on post can never be President? Sometime the truth hurts, right? Do military ‘brats’ born overseas require naturalization?

    How . where was it determined that territories weren’t part of the country? They are under federal jurisdiction, subject to US civil law. At the instant of the Constitution’s writing, I don’t think the federal gov’t was managing any territories. Even so, it’s a pretty basic point of international law that sovereigns can control territory by fiat and that such territory is considered territory of that nation (what says Vattel? 😉 ). Why wouldn’t someone born in Vermont or Kaintuckee in the 1780s, or in Arkansas in 1805, be considered a NBC?

    Are you implying that NBC status requires ‘state citizenship’, that mere ‘federal-‘ or ’14th- amendment’ citizenship is not good enough? If you are making this dubious, ahistorical assertion, why would the federal be inferior to state for federal purposes? Why was concern expressed by members of Congress that the 14th amendment would make ‘those people’ eligible for the highest office in the land?

    ____________________

    Still no satisfactory answer regarding the year 2000. Would you like me to suggest a few for you? They will all come across as dodges, but, taking your statements as a whole, that’s inevitable.

  333. Majority Will says:
    February 9, 2013 at 4:56 am  (Quote)

    JRC:
    And next time I call in I’m hoping I won’t say “you know”, “umm”, and “like” as much as I have in the past. I just get really nervous.Anyway I believe that guy that has all those kids was a politician, and basically gets free health care for have family which upsets me quite a bit.Honestly, if you serve, I respect that, but you shouldn’t be paid for life, and get free health care for life.

    Not sure on the particulars especially on social welfare but here’s more info. on the Duggars.

    Jim Bob served in the Arkansas House of Representatives from 1999 to 2002. Currently, he is a real estate agent and investor. The Duggars’ income is derived from the rental proceeds of the commercial properties they own.[13][14] They live debt-free,[15][16] which Jim Bob has said is “the fruit of Jim Sammons’ Financial Freedom Seminar” he attended years ago (Sammons’ Seminar is endorsed by IBLP). The construction of their 7,000-square-foot (650-square- meter) house was begun by the family in 2000 when they bought the lot and ordered the frame. Discovery Networks completed it, by finding local Arkansas construction workers to donate their skills and time. The home was completed on January 20, 2006. The painting, decorating, furnishings, appliances, and other finishing touches—such as a stocked pantry—were provided by Discovery Networks and corporate sponsors as part of the one-hour television special[14] entitled 16 Children and Moving In.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19_Kids_and_Counting

  334. aesthetocyst says:
    February 9, 2013 at 4:57 am  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: I have not met a single person in my lifetime that didn’t think that we inherited jury by trial from England. I too thought we had until two years ago

    You must be joking. I live in Okieland. Ignorance runs in the streets. Yet even here, the people aren’t that ignorant. And surely you weren’t either….oh, who am I kidding. Just look at the trail of wreckage you’ve left here over the past week!

    I’ll ask a few Okies and let you know what they know re: trial by jury.

  335. JRC says:
    February 9, 2013 at 5:02 am  (Quote)

    Mr. Gard, thanks for your reply. I’m sure that the American version of trial by jury came from England (or the UK, or GB). I’d imagine that whereever England got it from that they tweaked it to their liking. In Greece they had up to 1500 jurors, the Vikings 12, Islams 12 as well I believe. Anyway, I don’t believe the Founders were looking at Greece or Rome or Islam or the Vikings. It’s just a believe, but honestly haven’t read anything from the Founder about those peoples, but have read the Founders talking about English Law…English Common Law at that.

    Sorry, had to edit this, because I have read the Founders talking about the Romans, and the Greeks. But not so much as to make me believe that trial by jury in America was any different than that in England.

  336. JRC says:
    February 9, 2013 at 5:10 am  (Quote)

    Majority Will: Not sure on the particulars especially on social welfare but here’s more info. on the Duggars.

    Jim Bob served in the Arkansas House of Representatives from 1999 to 2002. Currently, he is a real estate agent and investor. The Duggars’ income is derived from the rental proceeds of the commercial properties they own.[13][14] They live debt-free,[15][16] which Jim Bob has said is “the fruit of Jim Sammons’ Financial Freedom Seminar” he attended years ago (Sammons’ Seminar is endorsed by IBLP). The construction of their 7,000-square-foot (650-square- meter) house was begun by the family in 2000 when they bought the lot and ordered the frame. Discovery Networks completed it, by finding local Arkansas construction workers to donate their skills and time. The home was completed on January 20, 2006. The painting, decorating, furnishings, appliances, and other finishing touches—such as a stocked pantry—were provided by Discovery Networks and corporate sponsors as part of the one-hour television special[14] entitled 16 Children and Moving In.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19_Kids_and_Counting

    Sorry, it seems I was wrong. I’d be surprised if an Arkansas legislator got free health care for life. So again my apologies. (I’ll look into it just because, but thinking I’m wrong on this one)

    And thank you for the info Majority Will.

  337. Bob Gard says:
    February 9, 2013 at 5:52 am  (Quote)

    I would like to address Dr. Conspiracy’s mention of “frequently” in his first question of The Great Debate. I listed all the cases I have come to know that used natural-born citizen in print in the world. My list does not make the usage of the term frequent. I implore the good Doctor to provide me with many more that would make the usage “frequent” in colonial and state legislation. I repeat my thanks to the individual that pointed out several state acts of naturalization that I was previously unaware of. This is the benefit of these kinds of debates.

    The Doctor’s question, “Was the meaning of that phrase taken from English Common Law, or from some other source, and if so, what?”, seems to beg a smoking-gun style of answer contingent upon the specifics of a source with, naturally, a proof, perhaps a citation from English statutory or common law. I assume he is also indirectly challenging me to come up with a contrary source in the form of a U.S. constitutional framer. In a multitude of occasions, I have told everyone I do not possess smoking gun evidence yet nearly all the questions I am asked seem to require this nature of evidence.

    I have not seen the Doctor’s response to my answer to the best of my ability. I thought I would find it on The Great Debate site. No response is on the site as of this morning. I am convinced that he will judge my best answer to lack any straightforward positive proof. In view of my prediction, I want to discuss a few things beforehand.

    I believe that the Doctor and almost all of you are sure that natural-born citizen equals native-born citizen.

    The Doctor has my eBook so he knows that I have included some axioms. “Axiom 6. Political analysts must apply the same logic to both sides of any political dispute in order to be fair and consistent.” I believe that he must apply the same logic to himself that he applies to me. He keeps insisting that I answer questions that have clear, decisive, smoking-gun answers.

    In that case, under the doctrine of equal-sided fairness, I pose the same style of question to him. My question is: Can you name any framer (attending the Constitutional Convention after July 25, 1787, who signed the Constitution in September) that, at any time after July 25, defined the term of natural-born citizen as native-born citizen? If so, who, when, where and how? His exact words, please.

    If you cannot answer this question with smoking-gun evidence, then we have a real problem about the standard you apply to me unless you are willing to apply it to yourself. If I am under the obligation to prove by way of smoking-gun evidence that American natural-born citizens mean those born in America of American citizen parents, then you are logically under the same obligation to prove that American natural-born citizens are native-born citizens. If you cannot show me the name of the framer who defined natural-born citizens as native-born citizens, then I submit that you will have to resort to all the same kind of evidence that I resorted to in my book. In other words, the meaning of natural-born citizen is up for grabs. It is not a given no matter what many of your “implied” pseudonym lawyers in this thread contend or your court cases decide without smoking-gun evidence. It is only their interpretation. They need to back it up with the same kind of arguments that I have backed up my conclusions with.

    It’s not just my obligation to prove that natural-born citizenship is what I say it is; it is also yours to prove what you say it is and the courts to prove what they say it is. I await your smoking-gun proof. If you have none, then we can get down to debating circumstantial, corroborative and correlational proof wherein you will stop asking me the kind of question that does not allow for these proofs as answers.

  338. Whatever4 says:
    February 9, 2013 at 6:00 am  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: Prior candidates who were born in territories before they were states were not eligible either.This is based on my conclusion that Jay followed 212. “. . . in the country.”

    What about VP Charles Curtis, who was born in Kansas Territory? He was VP from 1929 to 1933.

  339. Scientist says:
    February 9, 2013 at 6:40 am  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: I have not met a single person in my lifetime that didn’t think that we inherited jury by trial from England

    But the long piece you posted in no way says the US didn’t get trial by jury from England. It merely says that England did not originate it, which I don’t think anyone claimed. If your parents (one or both) give you a plate that one of their ancestors owned 150 years ago, you would have received it from your parents, but they didn’t create it. Americans did not sit down and survey the world to decide how to conduct trials, they simply used the process that came to these shores from England (even if England didn’t invent it).

    Frankly, your logical processes are quite lacking.

    aesthetocyst: What a tangled web Bob weaves.

    To quote Judith Sheindlin (Judge Judy)-If you tell the truth you don’t need a good memory.

  340. Scientist says:
    February 9, 2013 at 6:58 am  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: I believe that the Doctor and almost all of you are sure that natural-born citizen equals native-born citizen

    Actually, not so. I hesitate to speak for Doc, but the I think it would be fair to say that the majority opinion here is that natural-born citizen includes all native-born citizens plus those who acquired citizenship at birth abroad through their parents (one or both). A minority of those here may dispute that, but I think that opinion would prevail if a vote were taken.

    Bob Gard: Can you name any framer (attending the Constitutional Convention after July 25, 1787, who signed the Constitution in September) that, at any time after July 25, defined the term of natural-born citizen as native-born citizen?

    This comes awfully close, closer than the mis-translation and mis-understanding of Vattel you rely upon:

    “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”- James Madison, 22 May 1789

    As for your point about “smoking gun” you are the one who is proposing to overturn several centuries of jurisprudence, the opinions of all the legal scholars, the Supreme Court, the Congress and the voters. The burden my friend is on YOU. It is a giant boulder, and so far, you haven’t even lifted a pebble.

    “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.”-Marcello Truzzi

    And you aren’t even follwing the rules of the damn debate you were so eager to have with Doc.

  341. misha marinsky says:
    February 9, 2013 at 7:25 am  (Quote)

    Majority Will: Perhaps in your experience but not mine.

    The College Conservative – Same-Sex Marriage and the Sacred Right to Refuse Service

    http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/02/02/same-sex-marriage-and-the-sacred-right-to-refuse-service/

    The Bible teaches that homosexual acts are not only a sin but an abomination. In a nation that identifies itself as predominantly Christian, is it any wonder that a significant portion of the population is horrified by the idea of being involved in a same-sex wedding? Is it really fair for government to take sides on an issue that has the nation split into a cultural divide? Does an individual’s right to be served by a private business overrule the property rights of the business owner?

    When government doesn’t interfere in the workplace, the free market tends to right itself.

    Lovers of freedom in the great state of New Hampshire: might you take just a few minutes out of your day to give your senators and representatives a call. You are the only ones who can defend liberty in the Granite State.

  342. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 9, 2013 at 8:07 am  (Quote)

    I haven’t seen your answer. Did you email it? It’s not in my In box.

    Bob Gard: I have not seen the Doctor’s response to my answer to the best of my ability.

  343. Paper says:
    February 9, 2013 at 8:50 am  (Quote)

    He posted it above in this thread yesterday, saying he couldn’t figure out how to post it to the debate proper. He must have missed the point about emailing it, or using the contact form to send it to you.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I haven’t seen your answer. Did you email it? It’s not in my In box.

  344. Reality Check says:
    February 9, 2013 at 9:00 am  (Quote)

    The foremost Constitutional history researcher in 234 years couldn’t find the simple instructions on how to reply? Say it ain’t so, Joe, say it ain’t so.

    Paper:
    He posted it above in this thread yesterday, saying he couldn’t figure out how to post it to the debate proper.He must have missed the point about emailing it, or using the contact form to send it to you.

  345. Arthur says:
    February 9, 2013 at 9:01 am  (Quote)

    Bob,

    You need an editor. Not the pretentious word-buddy you’ve got now, but somebody who will disabuse you of verbal smoke screens and make you get to the point.

    Dr. C.,

    Trying to get a straight answer out of Bob is like squeezing fog to get a cup of water. Stay thirsty, my friend. Because you will be.

  346. Paper says:
    February 9, 2013 at 9:04 am  (Quote)

    Here is Bob’s answer:

    Bob Gard:
    I went to the Great Debate and read Dr. Conspiracy’s first question. Here’s my response. Let me know if I am supposed to respond in a different manner directly in the Great Debate. I could not figure out how.

    In the eBook, I did not know of three occurrences of natural-born citizens pointed out to me by Tonchen. I think he found two by way of Greschak, most of whose information had disappeared from the web when I started researching. These two were from Patsall and Spelman who wrote natural born citizens as English translations for Latin phrases. They were incredibly liberal translations, impossible to defend. Then Tonchen found a new one by Eelbeck, also with a faulty translation. I researched as best I could to verify if any of the framers had the translated books in their libraries or had made references to them. I found nothing so I have assumed Jay did not get the term from them. I have recently incorporated this information in my book.

    Madison wrote that a resolution reported by Jefferson in the Continental Congress of 1777 incorporated natural-born citizen. That turned out false. Jay did not get it from that resolution.

    In 1777 a resolution using the term natural born free Citizens was used in the Continental Congress. I believe the term was used linguistically to mean simply citizens born in the destination state to differentiate them from citizens of the other states immigrating into the destination state. The immigrants from the other states were called plain “citizens.” The resolution did not equate the terminology between the two states.

    I knew of a 1785 coded letter between Adams and Jefferson where one term was decoded as natural born Citizens but not with certification.

    Thanks to one of your contributors I have been informed of several uses I did not know about in state acts of naturalization. I have not incorporated them into my eBook yet. I will. Please let me know of others you might be referring to because you used the adverb “frequently.”

    “Was the meaning of that phrase taken from English Common Law, or from some other source, and if so, what?” The answer is no if refering to the Constitution.Jay took his meaning from Vattel. If you mean the meaning in those acts of naturalization, Americans had begun to use citizen to mean subject because they began to dislike a commmon term with England for citizenship. They were creating their own terms and their own law. They were defining themselves.They were withdrawing from English common law. Their use of citizen instead of subject evolved such that they linked the right to expatriation to it. That was the beginning of its separation from subject, which would also separate natural born citizen from natural born subject.

  347. Paper says:
    February 9, 2013 at 9:11 am  (Quote)

    FYI – This seems to be a Part Two for Bob’s answer to Dr. C’s question.

    Bob Gard:
    I would like to address Dr. Conspiracy’s mention of “frequently” in his first question of The Great Debate. I listed all the cases I have come to know that used natural-born citizen in print in the world. My list does not make the usage of the term frequent. I implore the good Doctor to provide me with many more that would make the usage “frequent” in colonial and state legislation. I repeat my thanks to the individual that pointed out several state acts of naturalization that I was previously unaware of. This is the benefit of these kinds of debates.

    The Doctor’s question, “Was the meaning of that phrase taken from English Common Law, or from some other source, and if so, what?”, seems to beg a smoking-gun style of answer contingent upon the specifics of a source with, naturally, a proof, perhaps a citation from English statutory or common law. I assume he is also indirectly challenging me to come up with a contrary source in the form of a U.S. constitutional framer. In a multitude of occasions, I have told everyone I do not possess smoking gun evidence yet nearly all the questions I am asked seem to require this nature of evidence.

    I have not seen the Doctor’s response to my answer to the best of my ability. I thought I would find it on The Great Debate site. No response is on the site as of this morning. I am convinced that he will judge my best answer to lack any straightforward positive proof. In view of my prediction, I want to discuss a few things beforehand.

    I believe that the Doctor and almost all of you are sure that natural-born citizen equals native-born citizen.

    The Doctor has my eBook so he knows that I have included some axioms. “Axiom 6. Political analysts must apply the same logic to both sides of any political dispute in order to be fair and consistent.” I believe that he must apply the same logic to himself that he applies to me. He keeps insisting that I answer questions that have clear, decisive, smoking-gun answers.

    In that case, under the doctrine of equal-sided fairness, I pose the same style of question to him.My question is: Can you name any framer (attending the Constitutional Convention after July 25, 1787, who signed the Constitution in September) that, at any time after July 25, defined the term of natural-born citizen as native-born citizen? If so, who, when, where and how? His exact words, please.

    If you cannot answer this question with smoking-gun evidence, then we have a real problem about the standard you apply to me unless you are willing to apply it to yourself. If I am under the obligation to prove by way of smoking-gun evidence that American natural-born citizens mean those born in America of American citizen parents, then you are logically under the same obligation to prove that American natural-born citizens are native-born citizens. If you cannot show me the name of the framer who defined natural-born citizens as native-born citizens, then I submit that you will have to resort to all the same kind of evidence that I resorted to in my book. In other words, the meaning of natural-born citizen is up for grabs. It is not a given no matter what many of your “implied” pseudonym lawyers in this thread contend or your court cases decide without smoking-gun evidence. It is only their interpretation. They need to back it up with the same kind of arguments that I have backed up my conclusions with.

    It’s not just my obligation to prove that natural-born citizenship is what I say it is; it is also yours to prove what you say it is and the courts to prove what they say it is. I await your smoking-gun proof. If you have none, then we can get down to debating circumstantial, corroborative and correlational proof wherein you will stop asking me the kind of question that does not allow for these proofs as answers.

  348. ballantine says:
    February 9, 2013 at 9:12 am  (Quote)

    Scientist: But the long piece you posted in no way says the US didn’t get trial by jury from England.It merely says that England did not originate it, which I don’t think anyone claimed.If your parents (one or both) give you a plate that one of their ancestors owned 150 years ago, you would have received it from your parents, but they didn’t create it.Americans did not sit down and survey the world to decide how to conduct trials, they simply used the process that came to these shores from England (even if England didn’t invent it).

    Frankly, your logical processes are quite lacking.

    To quote Judith Sheindlin (Judge Judy)-If you tell the truth you don’t need a good memory.

    Yes, he appears not to get the distinction. Bob and his ilk are so desparate to minimize the role of the common law and exaggerate the role of the law of nations, they seem blinded by simple logic. It is simply a fact that all the colonies adopted a form of the English common law that was in place in their colonies before the revolution which was substantially the same as the English law. They also adopted the English statutes that were in place so that almost all early statytory construction in the United States was of English statutes. The common law was slowly modified in the United States but much of it remain part of our law today. These are simply facts. The role of the Law of Nations then and today is insignificant as international law is irrelevant to 99% of our jurisprudence.

  349. ballantine says:
    February 9, 2013 at 9:21 am  (Quote)

    Bob Gard:
    In a multitude of occasions, I have told everyone I do not possess smoking gun evidence yet nearly all the questions I am asked seem to require this nature of evidence.

    You seem to have trouble reading, we have been saying you have no evidence at all. You still don’t understand that conjecture is not evidence. Your entire argument rests upon your delusion that you have proof what 2 people talked about 220 years ago when all you have is wild conjecture, and conjecture that actually makes no sense. You are simply lying to yourself. You don’t know what Jay and Scott talked about or whether Jay defined natural born to him. No judge would allow you to say that you do with any certainy. The early scholars in this country who defined natural born by the common law must have met thousands of times with various framers and probably dicsussed citizenship at some point. To state with any certainty that they defined natural born would be lying because there is no such evidence. But it is clear one cannot have a debate with someone who doesn’t understand what evidence is and has convinced himselve he knows more than everyone else.

  350. Paper says:
    February 9, 2013 at 9:22 am  (Quote)

    Need to travel more? 😉

    The first case that jumped to my mind was Socrates.

    But see Scientist on the difference between inheritance and invention.

    Bob Gard: I have not met a single person in my lifetime that didn’t think that we inherited jury by trial from England. I too thought we had until two years ago

  351. Scientist says:
    February 9, 2013 at 9:23 am  (Quote)

    Arthur: Bob,
    You need an editor. Not the pretentious word-buddy you’ve got now, but somebody who will disabuse you of verbal smoke screens and make you get to the point.

    I volunteer. If you edit everything Bob has said here down to a sentence, including all of his evidence, it is the following: “I don’t like Barack Obama because he went to the fancy schools that I didn’t get to go to for reasons that I am not really certain of, but I think could, possibly, have had to something to do with affirmative action, or perhaps not.”

  352. ballantine says:
    February 9, 2013 at 9:31 am  (Quote)

    Bob Gard:

    In that case, under the doctrine of equal-sided fairness, I pose the same style of question to him.My question is: Can you name any framer (attending the Constitutional Convention after July 25, 1787, who signed the Constitution in September) that, at any time after July 25, defined the term of natural-born citizen as native-born citizen? If so, who, when, where and how? His exact words, please.

    This is just more of a strawman argument, as no one has asked you for smoking gun evidence, just actual evidence. We all know no framer defined natural born citizen, but we do know that when the argued about eligibility and foreign influence, the only thing proposed as a native birth requirement. There is no evidence at all that a single person thought about parentage in the Convention. It was also said in one state retification convention that the President be a “native.”

    However, your question again shows a lack of understanding of Constitutional interpretation. If you ever studied it, you would understand that it is the meaning the phrase was understood to mean by the people, not te subjective intent of the framers. It seems you have not read many supreme court cases. Accordingly, the court looks to use of the term at the time and the decades following. Here, it is simply a fact that natural born citizen was conflated with native, native born citizen and natural born subject during this period and for decades afterwards. On the other hand there is no evidence a single legal authority in the founding generation defined it according to Vattel. Not one. This is as much of a smoking gun as you get in Constitutional Law. Indeed, Scalia would tell you he didn’t care what any framer thought, he would want to know what the term was generally understood to mean during this period and if you can’t provide actual evidence that someone used Vattel definition, you would be done. Sadly, I know you won’t listen to any one this because you don’t want to learn.

  353. Arthur says:
    February 9, 2013 at 9:36 am  (Quote)

    Scientist: If you edit everything Bob has said here down to a sentence, including all of his evidence, it is the following: “I don’t like Barack Obama because he went to the fancy schools that I didn’t get to go to for reasons that I am not really certain of, but I think could, possibly, have had to something to do with affirmative action, or perhaps not.”

    Scientist:

    I don’t know why you went into science–you obviously have the soul of a psychologist.

    Here’s my edit:

    “In a multitude of occasions, I have told everyone I do not possess smoking gun evidence yet nearly all the questions I am asked seem to require this nature of evidence.” Bob Gard

    Now let’s toss that into the General Atomics De-Gardler 7000, and we get,

    “I don’t have any factual evidence, so stop asking.”

  354. Northland10 says:
    February 9, 2013 at 10:04 am  (Quote)

    ballantine: You seem to have trouble reading, we have been saying you have no evidence at all. You still don’t understand that conjecture is not evidence. Your entire argument rests upon your delusion that you have proof what 2 people talked about 220 years ago when all you have is wild conjecture, and conjecture that actually makes no sense. You are simply lying to yourself. You don’t know what Jay and Scott talked about or whether Jay defined natural born to him.

    I am seeing shades of Butterdezillion style of logic here. Since they did not specifically say that “Jay did not talk to Scott and Jay did not use Vattel” that means that “Jay did talk to Scott and Jay did use Vattel.” It is not what they say that is important to him but what they didn’t say. Maybe he is looking for identical and not simply matching.

  355. Arthur says:
    February 9, 2013 at 10:22 am  (Quote)

    Northland10: I am seeing shades of Butterdezillion style of logic here.

    Different cover, same story.

  356. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 9, 2013 at 10:40 am  (Quote)

    Where is part 1? BTW, he’s reading WAY TOO MUCH into my question.

    Paper: FYI – This seems to be a Part Two for Bob’s answer to Dr. C’s question.

  357. Arthur says:
    February 9, 2013 at 10:44 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Where is part 1? BTW, he’s reading WAY TOO MUCH into my question.

    Here it is:

    Bob Gard:
    I went to the Great Debate and read Dr. Conspiracy’s first question. Here’s my response. Let me know if I am supposed to respond in a different manner directly in the Great Debate. I could not figure out how.

    In the eBook, I did not know of three occurrences of natural-born citizens pointed out to me by Tonchen. I think he found two by way of Greschak, most of whose information had disappeared from the web when I started researching. These two were from Patsall and Spelman who wrote natural born citizens as English translations for Latin phrases. They were incredibly liberal translations, impossible to defend. Then Tonchen found a new one by Eelbeck, also with a faulty translation. I researched as best I could to verify if any of the framers had the translated books in their libraries or had made references to them. I found nothing so I have assumed Jay did not get the term from them. I have recently incorporated this information in my book.

    Madison wrote that a resolution reported by Jefferson in the Continental Congress of 1777 incorporated natural-born citizen. That turned out false. Jay did not get it from that resolution.

    In 1777 a resolution using the term natural born free Citizens was used in the Continental Congress. I believe the term was used linguistically to mean simply citizens born in the destination state to differentiate them from citizens of the other states immigrating into the destination state. The immigrants from the other states were called plain “citizens.” The resolution did not equate the terminology between the two states.

    I knew of a 1785 coded letter between Adams and Jefferson where one term was decoded as natural born Citizens but not with certification.

    Thanks to one of your contributors I have been informed of several uses I did not know about in state acts of naturalization. I have not incorporated them into my eBook yet. I will. Please let me know of others you might be referring to because you used the adverb “frequently.”

    “Was the meaning of that phrase taken from English Common Law, or from some other source, and if so, what?” The answer is no if refering to the Constitution.Jay took his meaning from Vattel. If you mean the meaning in those acts of naturalization, Americans had begun to use citizen to mean subject because they began to dislike a commmon term with England for citizenship. They were creating their own terms and their own law. They were defining themselves.They were withdrawing from English common law. Their use of citizen instead of subject evolved such that they linked the right to expatriation to it. That was the beginning of its separation from subject, which would also separate natural born citizen from natural born subject.

  358. Paper says:
    February 9, 2013 at 10:59 am  (Quote)

    Arthur just reposted it, as well, but I re-posted it immediately before the Part 2 re-post, with the link back to the original. I posted it as “Here is Bob’s answer.” His answer (part 1) starts with “I went to the Great Debate…”

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Where is part 1? BTW, he’s reading WAY TOO MUCH into my question.

  359. Publius says:
    February 9, 2013 at 11:06 am  (Quote)

    JRC: I’m not Boehner, but I’m am a Conservative. I’m not a neo-con though. Maybe not as compassionate as some, but not cold hearted as you seem to think we are.

    I know liberals that are mean, liberals that are compassionate, conservatives that are mean, and conservatives that are compassionate. I know a fair number of the latter.

  360. gorefan says:
    February 9, 2013 at 11:11 am  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: I believe that the Doctor and almost all of you are sure that natural-born citizen equals native-born citizen.

    That’s probably true, but unlike you we base it on evidence not imaginery scenarios. I’ve not asked you for a smoking gun, I just ask you to explain the words of Tucker, Iredell and Kent. Here for the fourth or fifth time are their words:

    “That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague.” St. George Tucker 1803, “View of the Constitution of the United States with Selected Writings…”

    “No man but a native, or who has resided fourteen years in America, can be chosen President.” James Iredell, Debates in the Convention of the State of North Carolina on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution.

    “The Constitution requires (a) that the President shall be a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and that he shall have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and shall have been fourteen years a resident within the United States. Considering the greatness of the trust, and that this department is the ultimately efficient executive power in government, these restrictions will not appear altogether useless or unimportant. As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States, ambitious foreigners cannot intrigue for the office, and the qualification of birth cuts off all those inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation, and war, which have frequently and fatally harassed the elective monarchies of Germany and Poland, as well as the pontificate at Rome.” James Kent, Commentries on American Law

    Their words are explicit and require no interpretation.

    Please don’t say they were not Framers so they don’t count. That would be totally disrespectful to these Founders (Tucker was wounded at the Battle of Yorktown). Remember Axiom 6, you previously used Seybert and Smith to try and prove your point.

    Explain why you think they are wrong and that you understand the concepts better than they did.

  361. Northland10 says:
    February 9, 2013 at 11:24 am  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: I have not met a single person in my lifetime that didn’t think that we inherited jury by trial from England. I too thought we had until two years ago

    Nobody would argue that the original concept of Jury trial predated England jurisprudence. The flavor of our current trial by jury is, however, inherited from England. It was the system the founders already knew. It was also one of those Englishman rights being denied the colonists which resulting in our eventual separation from England (Declaration of Independence: “For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury”).

    Here is some more evidence on the English style of trial by jury:

    Abolition of the Star Chamber July 5, 1641
    An act for the regulating of the privy council, and for taking away the court commonly called the star-chamber.

    WHEREAS by the great charter many times confirmed in parliament, it is enacted, That no freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed or exiled or otherwise destroyed, and that the King will not pass upon him, or condemn him; but by lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land…

    Virginia Declaration of Rights:
    Adopted unanimously June 12, 1776 Virginia Convention of Delegates drafted by Mr. George Mason

    VIII That in all capital or criminal prosecutions a man hath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence in his favor, and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty, nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself; that no man be deprived of his liberty except by the law of the land or the judgement of his peers.

    Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

    Those who trumpet Vattel have to argue that we broke from England and everything English (except for the language). The need to trumpet one, incorrectly applied, paragraph requires them to ignore a large reason we broke from England. We left not because we wanted to get rid of English law. Instead, it was the denial of English Law due the arrogance of Parliament and the Crown that forced us to declare our independence.

  362. Majority Will says:
    February 9, 2013 at 11:33 am  (Quote)

    Northland10: Nobody would argue that the original concept of Jury trial predated England jurisprudence.The flavor of our current trial by jury is, however, inherited from England.It was the system the founders already knew.It was also one of those Englishman rights being denied the colonists which resulting in our eventual separation from England (Declaration of Independence:“For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury”).

    Here is some more evidence on the English style of trial by jury:

    Those who trumpet Vattel have to argue that we broke from England and everything English (except for the language).The need to trumpet one, incorrectly applied, paragraph requires them to ignore a large reason we broke from England.We left not because we wanted to get rid of English law.Instead, it was the denial of English Law due the arrogance of Parliament and the Crown that forced us to declare our independence.

    Oh, sure. BUT, if he adds a few hundred more pages of nonsensical, historical revisionism based on wishful thinking then what?

    Will those scary foreign people say they’re sorry and leave?

  363. Publius says:
    February 9, 2013 at 11:38 am  (Quote)

    ballantine: You seem to have trouble reading, we have been saying you have no evidence at all. You still don’t understand that conjecture is not evidence. Your entire argument rests upon your delusion that you have proof what 2 people talked about 220 years ago when all you have is wild conjecture, and conjecture that actually makes no sense. You are simply lying to yourself. You don’t know what Jay and Scott talked about or whether Jay defined natural born to him. No judge would allow you to say that you do with any certainy. The early scholars in this country who defined natural born by the common law must have met thousands of times with various framers and probably dicsussed citizenship at some point. To state with any certainty that they defined natural born would be lying because there is no such evidence. But it is clear one cannot have a debate with someone who doesn’t understand what evidence is and has convinced himselve he knows more than everyone else.

    Personally, I wouldn’t necessarily say Bob has no evidence at all. But that seems to be darn close.

    I think I put it earlier that Bob thinks he has sufficient evidence to get a conviction, and I haven’t even seen enough evidence to bring a case to trial.

    I may have understated the situation. I don’t know that he has enough evidence to warrant an arrest, or even a police knock on the door.

  364. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:
    February 9, 2013 at 12:06 pm  (Quote)

    Whatever4: What about VP Charles Curtis, who was born in Kansas Territory? He was VP from 1929 to 1933.

    Let’s also not forget his mother was born on an indian reservation and thus she wasn’t born a citizen of the US

  365. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:
    February 9, 2013 at 12:08 pm  (Quote)

    JRC:
    And next time I call in I’m hoping I won’t say “you know”, “umm”, and “like” as much as I have in the past. I just get really nervous.Anyway I believe that guy that has all those kids was a politician, and basically gets free health care for have family which upsets me quite a bit.Honestly, if you serve, I respect that, but you shouldn’t be paid for life, and get free health care for life.

    JRC I’m glad I wasn’t the only one who noticed it. Everyone gets nervous their first few times. I remember before I was hosting the first few times I called in.

  366. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:
    February 9, 2013 at 12:11 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: He was born outside American soil. The Panama Canal was controlled by America under treaty. It was not owned by America and accepted into statehood.The treaty had an expiration date. Prior candidates who were born in territories before they were states were not eligible either.This is based on my conclusion that Jay followed 212. “. . . in the country.”

    Except that’s incorrect as Barry Goldwater was eligible and was able to run for President without complaints.

  367. Publius says:
    February 9, 2013 at 12:16 pm  (Quote)

    This bears repeating. It matters more what those who ratified the Constitution understood by the term, than what John Jay or even the Framers understood by it.

    ballantine: However, your question again shows a lack of understanding of Constitutional interpretation. If you ever studied it, you would understand that it is the meaning the phrase was understood to mean by the people, not te subjective intent of the framers. It seems you have not read many supreme court cases. Accordingly, the court looks to use of the term at the time and the decades following. Here, it is simply a fact that natural born citizen was conflated with native, native born citizen and natural born subject during this period and for decades afterwards. On the other hand there is no evidence a single legal authority in the founding generation defined it according to Vattel. Not one. This is as much of a smoking gun as you get in Constitutional Law. Indeed, Scalia would tell you he didn’t care what any framer thought, he would want to know what the term was generally understood to mean during this period and if you can’t provide actual evidence that someone used Vattel definition, you would be done.

    Why? Because the Constitution that was ratified and adopted was the Constitution as it was understood by the states who ratified and adopted it. The Framers only wrote the Constitution. They did not adopt it as law for the country.

    And pretty much everyone, in the entire history of the United States, has always understood that “natural born citizen,” except for the difference between “subject” and “citizen,” meant exactly what “natural born subject” had always meant. This understanding begins (and is written down in many examples) with people who knew some of the most prominent Framers personally (like Rawle who knew, at the very least, both Washington and Franklin). Arguably, we even have evidence from at least one important Framer, James Madison who said it was place and not parentage that applied in the United States. And if Bob had done enough reading he would know it starts there and goes all down through history.

    So unless Bob can show that the people who adopted the Constitution in the various states understood the term to mean what Vattel was talking about, he’s done. Dead in the water. Kaput. Fini.

    And Bob can’t show that, because there’s no evidence for it.

    Beyond that, he can’t show any evidence at all, from before, during or after the Constitutional Convention, that the Framers who wrote the Constitution understood the term to mean what he says. Not one scrap of paper.

    He can’t even show that John Jay (who wasn’t even at the Convention) understood it to mean that.

    So we’re kind of from “beyond a reasonable doubt” to “because this is what I imagine they meant.”

  368. Publius says:
    February 9, 2013 at 12:19 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: Where is part 1? BTW, he’s reading WAY TOO MUCH into my question.

    I’ve tried to tell him, at least twice already, that he’s answered the wrong question, that you only asked him about the usages of “natural born subject” in colonial and state law, and not usages of “natural born citizen.” He doesn’t seem to have picked up on it.

  369. Publius says:
    February 9, 2013 at 12:25 pm  (Quote)

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: Let’s also not forget his mother was born on an indian reservation and thus she wasn’t born a citizen of the US

    Wasn’t born a citizen of the US, but Woodman has it that according to the law of the day she was a citizen of the US at the time Curtis was born.

  370. Paper says:
    February 9, 2013 at 12:28 pm  (Quote)

    Well,, I think there was some minor controversy about Goldwater, people talk, but he didn’t win, so even that is moot, never came to a test. And in terms of Bob Gard’s statement, he can still claim that Goldwater was not eligible (according to his lights). Don’t jump one me. I’m just saying.

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: Except that’s incorrect as Barry Goldwater was eligible and was able to run for President without complaints.

  371. Northland10 says:
    February 9, 2013 at 12:28 pm  (Quote)

    As a reminder John Jay quote, since it has come up before:

    for tho a person may by Birth or admission become a Citizen of one of the States I cannot conceive how one can either be born or be made a Citizen of them all

    http://wwwapp.cc.columbia.edu/ldpd/jay/item?mode=item&key=columbia.jay.07805

    In his letter to Franklin, John Jay was responding to a request to administer an oath to make someone an American citizen. Being only 1781, before the Federal structure, he was not sure how you could administer an oath for all states. The important part to note is that he specifically says, born or admitted.

  372. gorefan says:
    February 9, 2013 at 12:34 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: I have seen articles that mentioned there might have been a sort of trial by jury in ancient times but not with the same construct as England’s and ours.I

    So Bob, where did the convention get the model for impeaching public officials? Here is a hint – one of the Framers told us specifically where the Convention got its model.

  373. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:
    February 9, 2013 at 12:39 pm  (Quote)

    Paper:
    Well,, I think there was some minor controversy about Goldwater, people talk, but he didn’t win, so even that is moot, never came to a test.And in terms of Bob Gard’s statement, he can still claim that Goldwater was not eligible (according to his lights).Don’t jump one me.I’m just saying.

    I don’t think it would have mattered. The 12th amendment is pretty clear when it comes to choosing the president. If congress certified the election and goldwater won he would have been sworn in.

  374. Paper says:
    February 9, 2013 at 12:44 pm  (Quote)

    This one is more telling, in that the Twelfth Amendment was already in place (as of 1804). Congress clearly was on board, because as we know they certified him as VP.

    Whatever4: What about VP Charles Curtis, who was born in Kansas Territory? He was VP from 1929 to 1933.

    regarding Bob Gard’s comment: Prior candidates who were born in territories before they were states were not eligible either.This is based on my conclusion that Jay followed 212. “. . . in the country.”

  375. Arthur says:
    February 9, 2013 at 12:57 pm  (Quote)

    The great Zen master Zhongfeng Mingben once asked, “What is the sound of a great debate with one Bob Gard?”

    His student remained silent.

  376. Paper says:
    February 9, 2013 at 1:03 pm  (Quote)

    I’m not arguing with you about that. I’m just saying that Golodwater is an insufficient example to say Bob Gard was outright “incorrect” on this point. Because Goldwater did not win, and he was not certified, and so maybe yes if he had been, but he wasn’t and it didn’t happen.

    Charles Curtis, on the other hand, pretty clearly makes the case. But even there, Gard states “prior candidates” [which for the extent of his statement does not readily include VP’s].

    So, I’m just saying, there is some wiggle room there. Granted, as you say, it almost certainly would make no difference. Especially when we factor in Curtis actually having been accepted.

    I’m just saying there is no sharp precedent enabling us to just stack this up as one more *inaccuracy* by Bob Gard. It is an example of his way of thinking and interpreting, though, for whatever that is worth.

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: I don’t think it would have mattered.The 12th amendment is pretty clear when it comes to choosing the president.If congress certified the election and goldwater won he would have been sworn in.

  377. Scientist says:
    February 9, 2013 at 1:07 pm  (Quote)

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: I don’t think it would have mattered. The 12th amendment is pretty clear when it comes to choosing the president. If congress certified the election and goldwater won he would have been sworn in.

    Which, as I have said, renders the very title of Bob’s book a bald-faced lie, because Obama became President through the 12th Amendment, which is, of course, part of the Constitution. So, it is not only beyond a reasonable doubt that Obama is constitutional, it is beyond all doubt.

    Regarding the natural born question, I think the discussion here should focus, as a first step, on this very simple question:

    Does “parents” obligatorily mean both parents?

    I think the answer is clearly NO because common English usage “Parents must pick up their children by 5 PM” incorporates the case of a single parent picking up the child. The usage in French is the same. “Les parents doivent retrouver leurs enfants avant 17h00 also allows only 1 parent to show up.

    Unless Bob can convince me that I am wrong, then I have to say that I cannot see how Vattel excludes Obama, since he had did indeed have “parents who were citizens”.

    Of course, Bob’s case could still apply to other potential candidates in 2016 and beyond who did not have any citizen parents. That would require actual evence to support Bob’s speculations, of which, frankly, I have seen none

  378. gorefan says:
    February 9, 2013 at 1:17 pm  (Quote)

    Publius: He doesn’t seem to have picked up on it.

    You assume he wants to pick up on it.

    Bob was shown the Massachusetts acts of naturalization, he completely ignored the implication of the Massachusetts legislature using both terms interchangeably and focused on the early use of NBC by one of the acts.

  379. C. Stanton says:
    February 9, 2013 at 1:26 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: Where is part 1?

    Doc, I think it may be necessary to take Bob’s comment at February 9, 2013 at 5:52 am and plug that into the Great Debate thread as his reply (if you deem it appropriate). At least for now.

    I sent him an email last night in the hopes of clarifying about any confusion on his part and have yet to get a reply. This tells me that there may have been some sort of emergency for him on the home front. Bob is not normally out of touch or unresponsive like this.

  380. C. Stanton says:
    February 9, 2013 at 1:33 pm  (Quote)

    JRC: I’m not Boehner, but I’m am a Conservative. I’m not a neo-con though. Maybe not as compassionate as some, but not cold hearted as you seem to think we are. I believe in separation of church and state. Not because the church is bad, but because we have a duty as a society to help our fellow man. I don’t need a religion to tell me that. I don’t need a government to tell me that either. Can’t stand the GOP, but can’t stand the Democrats either. Trust me I’ve feed, clothed and tried to help when I could, friend, family and stranger. Just don’t lump us all together with the elites, as I don’t lump everyone struggling for whatever reason as takers. That tactic is a failed tactic. We are a society. To succeed we need everyone to do the best they can, and help those that are down. Not saying we need to support everyone, just give a helping hand.

    Really well said, JRC. Let me know if you have a third party that you’re starting. I’d be interested. As a friend of mine says:

    “The only thing worse than a republican, is a democrat.”

  381. gorefan says:
    February 9, 2013 at 1:34 pm  (Quote)

    C. Stanton: I sent him an email last night in the hopes of clarifying about any confusion on his part and have yet to get a reply. This tells me that there may have been some sort of emergency for him on the home front. Bob is not normally out of touch or unresponsive like this.

    He posted here today (February 9th) at 5:52 a.m.

  382. Arthur says:
    February 9, 2013 at 1:40 pm  (Quote)

    C. Stanton: “The only thing worse than a republican, is a democrat.”

    Love it! “And the only thing worse than a birther, is . . . a birther masquerading as an editor.”

  383. Arthur says:
    February 9, 2013 at 1:43 pm  (Quote)

    C. Stanton: Bob is not normally out of touch or unresponsive like this.

    Unless he’s trying to avoid something. I wonder what?

  384. Majority Will says:
    February 9, 2013 at 1:46 pm  (Quote)

    C. Stanton:
    JRC: I’m not Boehner, but I’m am a Conservative. I’m not a neo-con though. Maybe not as compassionate as some, but not cold hearted as you seem to think we are. I believe in separation of church and state. Not because the church is bad, but because we have a duty as a society to help our fellow man. I don’t need a religion to tell me that. I don’t need a government to tell me that either. Can’t stand the GOP, but can’t stand the Democrats either. Trust me I’ve feed, clothed and tried to help when I could, friend, family and stranger. Just don’t lump us all together with the elites, as I don’t lump everyone struggling for whatever reason as takers. That tactic is a failed tactic. We are a society. To succeed we need everyone to do the best they can, and help those that are down. Not saying we need to support everyone, just give a helping hand.

    Really well said, JRC. Let me know if you have a third party that you’re starting. I’d be interested. As a friend of mine says:

    “The only thing worse than a republican, is a democrat.”

    And the only thing worse than an obstinate, xenophobic, delusional and fear mongering birther bigot is a birther bigot’s promoter.

  385. Arthur says:
    February 9, 2013 at 1:49 pm  (Quote)

    Majority Will: And the only thing worse than an obstinate, xenophobic, delusional and fear mongering birther bigot is a birther bigot’s promoter.

    Yes, that too.

  386. Publius says:
    February 9, 2013 at 1:49 pm  (Quote)

    Paper: Charles Curtis, on the other hand, pretty clearly makes the case.

    No, it looks like an 1855 law made Curtis’ mother a US citizen.

  387. C. Stanton says:
    February 9, 2013 at 1:51 pm  (Quote)

    misha marinsky: Conservative and compassionate are mutually exclusive.

    Not only is the forgoing untrue but whatever small weight it might possibly carry pales in comparison to the viciousness of Liberalism’s “soft racism” of lowered expectations.

  388. Paper says:
    February 9, 2013 at 1:53 pm  (Quote)

    Yes, but he was born in the Kansas *territory.* Gard is of the opinion that both jus soli and jus sanguinis are required, and that territories do not count as soil.

    Publius: No, it looks like an 1855 law made Curtis’ mother a US citizen.

  389. Scientist says:
    February 9, 2013 at 1:55 pm  (Quote)

    Stanton, since you’re here and you’re an editor who ought to be good with language, why don’t you answer my question-no research is required:

    Does “parents” obligatorily mean both parents?

    If you put your kid in an after school program and the rules said, “Parents must pick up their children by 5 PM” do you think that means both you and their mother must show up or would just one of you do?

  390. Publius says:
    February 9, 2013 at 1:56 pm  (Quote)

    Oh. Well, if territories don’t count, then I guess Curtis is back on the menu.

    Last time I checked, territories had soil as well. What’s up with that?

  391. Arthur says:
    February 9, 2013 at 1:58 pm  (Quote)

    C. Stanton: lowered expectations.

    Carnack: The answer is, “Lowered Expectations.”

    Ed McMahon: What do you get reading Bob Gard’s non-answers to a debate question?

  392. Monkey Boy says:
    February 9, 2013 at 2:15 pm  (Quote)

    JRC: Trust me I’ve feed, clothed and tried to help when I could, friend, family and stranger.Just don’t lump us all together with the elites, as I don’t lump everyone struggling for whatever reason as takers.That tactic is a failed tactic. We are a society.To succeed we need everyone to do the best they can, and help those that are down.Not saying we need to support everyone, just give a helping hand.

    Sure sounds like a bleeding heart lib to me.

  393. C. Stanton says:
    February 9, 2013 at 2:17 pm  (Quote)

    Publius: I would actually be tempted by the $3 copy, except for the fact that payment would probably give out my address or name.

    Publius, you have clearly argued in good faith and made such obvious efforts to maintain a consistent tone of civility that I’ve asked Bob to send some extra copies to Dr. Conspiracy so that they can be privately forwarded to you (and Scientist). I hope that this happens as you have participated in earnest at all times.

  394. Bob Gard says:
    February 9, 2013 at 2:18 pm  (Quote)

    C. Stanton:
    Dr. Conspiracy: Where is part 1?

    Doc, I think it may be necessary to take Bob’s comment at February 9, 2013 at 5:52 am and plug that into the Great Debate thread as his reply (if you deem it appropriate). At least for now.

    I sent him an email last night in the hopes of clarifying about any confusion on his part and have yet to get a reply. This tells me that there may have been some sort of emergency for him on the home front. Bob is not normally out of touch or unresponsive like this.

    As I said, I did not understand how to reply on The Great Debate. Here was something I transmitted early this morning but cannot find on either site.

    I would like to address Dr. Conspiracy’s mention of “frequently” in his first question of The Great Debate. I listed all the cases I have come to know that used natural-born citizen in print in the world. My list does not make the term frequent. I implore the good Doctor to provide me with many more that would make the usage “frequent” in colonial and state legislation. I repeat my thanks to the individual that pointed out several state acts of naturalization that I was previously unaware of. This is the benefit of these kinds of debates.

    The Doctor’s question, “Was the meaning of that phrase taken from English Common Law, or from some other source, and if so, what?”, seems to beg a smoking-gun style of answer contingent upon the specifics of the source with, naturally, a proof, perhaps a citation from English statutory or common law. I assume he is also indirectly challenging me to come up with a contrary source in the form of a U.S. constitutional framer’s definition. In a multitude of occasions, I have told everyone I do not possess smoking gun evidence yet nearly all the questions I am asked seem to require this nature of evidence.
    I have not seen the Doctor’s response. I thought I would find it on The Great Debate site. No response is on the site as of this morning. I am convinced that he will judge my best answer to lack any straightforward positive proof. In view of my prediction, I want to discuss a few things beforehand.

    I believe that the Doctor and almost all of you are sure that natural-born citizen equals native-born citizen.

    The Doctor has my eBook so he knows that I have included some axioms. “Axiom 6. Political analysts must apply the same logic to both sides of any political dispute in order to be fair and consistent.” I believe that he must apply the same logic to himself that he applies to me. He keeps insisting that I answer questions that have clear, decisive, smoking-gun answers.

    In that case, under the doctrine of equal-sided fairness, I pose the same style of question to him. My question is:

    Can you name any framer (attending the Constitutional Convention after July 25, 1787, who signed the Constitution in September) that, at any time after July 25, defined the term of natural-born citizen as native-born citizen? If so, who, when, where and how? His exact words, please.

    If you cannot answer this question with a smoking-gun answer, then we have a real problem about the standard you apply to me unless you are willing to apply it to yourself. If I am under the obligation to prove by way of smoking-gun evidence that American natural-born citizens mean those born in America of American citizen parents, then you are logically under the same obligation to prove that American natural-born citizens are native-born citizens. If you cannot show me the name of the framer who defined natural-born citizens as native-born citizens, then I submit that you will have to resort to all the same kind of evidence that I resorted to in my book. In other words, the meaning of natural-born citizen is up for grabs. It is not a given no matter what many of your “implied” pseudonym lawyers in this thread contend or your court cases decide without smoking-gun evidence. It is only their interpretation. They need to back it up with the same kind of arguments that I have backed up my conclusions with.

    It’s not just my obligation to prove that natural-born citizenship is what I say it is; it is also yours to prove what you say it is and the courts to prove what they say it is. I await your smoking-gun proof. If you have none, then we can get down to debating circumstantial, corroborative and correlational proof wherein you will stop asking me the kind of question that does not allow for these proofs as answers.

    In relation to the state legislative acts on naturalization, I agree that it appears “natural-born citizen” was being used interchangeably with free citizen, subject and natural-born subject. I gave an explanation via my analysis of the 1777 resolution with natural-born free Citizens. Because such terms were used interchangeably at the state level does not make circumstantial evidence at the certain level. I pointed out in my eBook that even the great Francis Plowden erred at times in confusing natural-born subject with natural subjects, subjects and freemen. A glaring example was his discussion of natural-born subjects during the plague, which occurred hundreds of years before Lord Coke coined the term natural-born subject.

    I transmitted the above email early this morning. I don’t see it. I also transmitted some others that I don’t find now. I will look again.

  395. C. Stanton says:
    February 9, 2013 at 2:20 pm  (Quote)

    Majority Will: And the only thing worse than an obstinate, xenophobic, delusional and fear mongering birther bigot is a birther bigot’s promoter.

    Bob is responsible for promoting his book. I have little to do with that effort. Keep your bile to yourself.

  396. Publius says:
    February 9, 2013 at 2:24 pm  (Quote)

    Thanks, C. Stanton. I do appreciate that.

    Earlier, Dr. C. offered to supply Bob with his PDF conversion of his book. One way he offered to do that was by uploading a password-protected zip file to this site that Bob (or you) could download, and emailing the password.

    Might I suggest that that might be an efficient way to pass the information? It would probably be easier for Dr. C. to zip up the file and upload it than to mail disks. And it would save probably at least a week’s worth of time in the mail, first to Dr. C. and then from Dr. C.

  397. C. Stanton says:
    February 9, 2013 at 2:29 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: Stanton, since you’re here and you’re an editor who ought to be good with language, why don’t you answer my question-no research is required:

    If you visit The Constitutionist website you will see that did not edit all chapters of Bob’s eBook. Consequently, I am not fluent in his entire chain of logic. I am neither willing nor in possession of the spare time to spend it arguing out all of Bob’s points for him. That is his task.

    Like Publius, you have demonstrated routine civility and I certainly hope that Bob will address your questions in good order (if not furnish you with a copy of his eBook).

  398. gorefan says:
    February 9, 2013 at 2:29 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: Here was something I transmitted early this morning but cannot find on either site.

    Do you not know how to search the site for key words? For exampe there are 11 matches for the word “frequently” (now 12). But there are only three matches for the phrase “Dr. Conspiracy’s mention of “frequently”” (now 4). BTW there are now even more matches for “frequently”.

    Here is your original post from February 9, 2013 at 5:52 am

    Bob Gard: Dr. Conspiracy’s mention of “frequently”

  399. Bob Gard says:
    February 9, 2013 at 2:31 pm  (Quote)

    Publius: I’ve tried to tell him, at least twice already, that he’s answered the wrong question, that you only asked him about the usages of “natural born subject” in colonial and state law, and not usages of “natural born citizen.” He doesn’t seem to have picked up on it.

    I just now am reading your comment. My blunder! I apologize. I have confessed more than once that I am a poor proofreader. Natural-born subject was frequently used in everything colonial in all kinds of documents and speeches. It was a frequent grievance of the Americans that they were not being granted their rights as natural-born subjects. I could not possibly list all the times.

  400. C. Stanton says:
    February 9, 2013 at 2:32 pm  (Quote)

    Publius: Might I suggest that that might be an efficient way to pass the information?

    I seem to recall that Bob has already done this in some manner. I’m unsure why this approach hasn’t been taken already. I’ll certainly mention it to Bob.

  401. Majority Will says:
    February 9, 2013 at 2:32 pm  (Quote)

    Monkey Boy: Sure sounds like a bleeding heart lib to me.

    🙂

  402. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:
    February 9, 2013 at 2:35 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: As I said, I did not understand how to reply on The Great Debate. Here was something I transmitted early this morning but cannot find on either site.
    blah blah blah

    Nowhere in your rant did you address Doc’s question.

  403. Bob Gard says:
    February 9, 2013 at 2:39 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: Which, as I have said, renders the very title of Bob’s book a bald-faced lie, because Obama became President through the 12th Amendment, which is, of course, part of the Constitution. So, it is not only beyond a reasonable doubt that Obama is constitutional, it is beyond all doubt.

    Regarding the natural born question, I think the discussion here should focus, as a first step, on this very simple question:

    Does “parents” obligatorily mean both parents?

    I think the answer is clearly NO because common English usage “Parents must pick up their children by 5 PM” incorporates the case of a single parent picking up the child. The usage in French is the same.“Les parents doivent retrouver leurs enfants avant 17h00 also allows only 1 parent to show up.

    Unless Bob can convince me that I am wrong, then I have to say that I cannot see how Vattel excludes Obama, since he had did indeed have “parents who were citizens”.

    Of course, Bob’s case could still apply to other potential candidates in 2016 and beyond who did not have any citizen parents.That would require actual evence to support Bob’s speculations, of which, frankly, I have seen none

    Obama’s father was a citizen? The fact that he wasn’t might be the only thing that liberals and conservatives agree on. Vattel’s definition of indigenes is clear. Both parents must be citizens. I verified this with some French and Swiss friends and old dictionaries. It’s in the eBook.

  404. gorefan says:
    February 9, 2013 at 2:40 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: Americans that they were not being granted their rights as natural-born subjects.

    And what was a “natural born subject” – hint look to the Colonial Charter of Georgia.

    Another hint – read Swift’s treatise on the laws of Connecticut.

  405. dunstvangeet says:
    February 9, 2013 at 2:42 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: Can you name any framer (attending the Constitutional Convention after July 25, 1787, who signed the Constitution in September) that, at any time after July 25, defined the term of natural-born citizen as native-born citizen? If so, who, when, where and how? His exact words, please.

    How about James Madison, the father of the Constitution: “It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”

    That’s definently more certain than your theory of John Jay, who would be out on your enteire thing because he didn’t sign the Constitution. He was in New York during the Constittuional Convention, and had no part in it.

  406. Paper says:
    February 9, 2013 at 2:43 pm  (Quote)

    Bob, just FYI, both of your answers posted here do not actually address Dr. C’s question.

    Basically, if I may take the audacity to rephrase, he was asking you where [you think] the meaning of the term *natural-born subject* comes from.

    Not natural-born citizen. Nor was he asking (at least at this point) to review every existing example, or how we came to use the term “citizen” instead of subject.

  407. Majority Will says:
    February 9, 2013 at 2:44 pm  (Quote)

    C. Stanton:
    Majority Will: And the only thing worse than an obstinate, xenophobic, delusional and fear mongering birther bigot is a birther bigot’s promoter.

    Bob is responsible for promoting his book. I have little to do with that effort. Keep your bile to yourself.

    I didn’t say you did.

    Are you policing who can post here now?

    Please keep whining. It’s a little sad but mildly entertaining.

  408. ballantine says:
    February 9, 2013 at 2:45 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: I just now am reading your comment. My blunder! I apologize. I have confessed more than once that I am a poor proofreader. Natural-born subject was frequently used in everythingcolonial in all kinds of documents and speeches.It was a frequent grievance of the Americans that they were not being granted their rights as natural-born subjects. I could not possibly list all the times.

    And, if you are honest, you will admit it was used frequently after our founding and was conflated with natural born citizen has we have shown.

    It has already been shown here that many of the original Constitutions used the term “natural born subject” and such term remained in many state constitutions for decades. “Natural born subject” was also the primary term used in state naturalization statutes up until the 19th century. We have shown that Massachusetts switched back and forth between natural born subject and citizen both before and after the Constitution was drafted. We have also shown that shortly after the adoption, Massachusetts proposed a Constitutional amendment that called the natural born citizenship clause a requirement for natural born subjects.

    There is an entire body of early American case law interpreting English statutes adopted in the United States after our founding that contained the term “natural born subject.” Such case law simply changed such term to “natural born citizens” or “native born citizens.” See, e.g., Palmer v. Downer, 2 Mass. 179 (1806), Jacksons v. Sanders, 2 Leigh 109 (1830), McCreery v. Somerville, 9 Wheat. 354 (1824), Lessee of Levy v. McCartee, 31 U.S. 6 Pet. 102 (1832).

    The terms, as well as “citizen” and “subject” were conflated up to and including into the 14th Amendment debates by scholars and courts. For example:

    “The people are considered as aliens, born in some foreign country, as inhabitants of some neighbouring state in the union, or natural born subjects, born within the state. It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subjeft to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.” Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut: in six books, Volumes 1-2 of A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: In Six Book, pg. 163,167 (1795)

    “The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.” Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)

    The term ‘citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term ‘subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a ‘subject of the king’ is now ‘a citizen of the State.” State v. Manuel 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26 (1838)

    “And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . .”Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.” James Kent, Commentaries on American Law, pg. 258 (1826).

    “From the close of the revolutionary war to the time of the adoption of the constitution of the United States, all persons born in this country became citizens of the respective States within whose jurisdiction they were born, by the rule of the common law….The word citizen expresses precisely the same relation to the State which subject does to the king. Indeed for a considerable period after the revolution, the word subject was used as synonymous with citizen. Thus in the declaration of rights in the constitution of Massachusetts, the word subject is several times introduced, where we should now use citizen. So in Mass. St. 1784, c. 72, s. 10, a punishment is enacted for kidnapping “any subject of this Commonwealth, or other person lawfully residing and inhabiting therein.” In this passage the word subject can have no other meaning than that ot citizen. Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories, or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.” American Jurist and Law Magizene, January, 1834

    If he was born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September, 1776, he was born an American citizen, whether his parents were at the time of his birth British subjects or American citizens. Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.” Justice Story, concurring opinion, Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155,164. (1830)

    “It requires all senators to be thirty years old, and prohibits any but a natural born subject from being president.” State v. Foreman, 16 Tenn. 256, 335–36 (1835).

    “An alien may, by becoming naturalized, be entitled to all the privileges of natural-born subjects; except that a residence of seven years is required to qualify an alien for a member of Congress, and that no person except a natural born subject can be a governor of a State, or President of the United States.” The Law Library, Vol. 84, pg. 50 (1854)

    “But the law of France rejects the principle of the English law, and of our own laws, that birth within the limits and jurisdiction of France, makes a Frenchman, or a natural-born citizen or subject of France, absolutely,…” Horace Binney, American Law Register, 2 Amer.Law Reg. 208 (February 1854).

    “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural- born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.” U.S. v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott, US 28 (Cir. Ct. Ky 1866).

  409. dunstvangeet says:
    February 9, 2013 at 2:48 pm  (Quote)

    Bob, one more thing:

    I am a divorced dad. My wife and my children live across the country. My wife says that there’s a sign outside the country club’s pool that says “Only children of members can use the pool”. Notice the S on Members. Now, do I have to join a country club so that my children can use the pool? Or is it fine, with my wife being the only member of the country club? I’m asking for the “Plain English” meaning of it.

  410. Paper says:
    February 9, 2013 at 2:50 pm  (Quote)

    Bob, you will need to address this:

    Lupin:
    The short bullet point list is that Vattel doesn’t help the birther cause because (a) his use of the group plural for “parens”, (b) the fact that “parens” means relatives and not parents, (c) the fact that he acknowledges that England uses jus soli which is OK in his book, and (d) the lack of compelling evidence that his French-language terms correctly translate into your terminology.

    Even assuming (d) above, Obama would still be considered a Swiss indigene by Vattel because of (a) to (c) (but not ruling out that he would be considered a British one in England). This is pretty much unarguable.

    Bob Gard: Obama’s father was a citizen? The fact that he wasn’t might be the only thing that liberals and conservatives agree on. Vattel’s definition of indigenes is clear. Both parents must be citizens. I verified this with some French and Swiss friends and old dictionaries. It’s in the eBook.

  411. Arthur says:
    February 9, 2013 at 2:50 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: Vattel’s definition of indigenes is clear. Both parents must be citizens. I verified this with some French and Swiss friends

    Let me guess: were their full names French Fry and Swiss Cheese?

  412. Paper says:
    February 9, 2013 at 2:54 pm  (Quote)

    But where does it come from? Where does the meaning of the term “natural-born subject” come from? To be a natural-born subject, or not to be. That is the question. Not where was it used in early America, but where does it come from? English Common Law? Or somewhere else? Where?

    Bob Gard: I just now am reading your comment. My blunder! I apologize. I have confessed more than once that I am a poor proofreader. Natural-born subject was frequently used in everythingcolonial in all kinds of documents and speeches.It was a frequent grievance of the Americans that they were not being granted their rights as natural-born subjects. I could not possibly list all the times.

  413. Publius says:
    February 9, 2013 at 3:09 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: It’s not just my obligation to prove that natural-born citizenship is what I say it is; it is also yours to prove what you say it is and the courts to prove what they say it is. I await your smoking-gun proof.

    Bob,

    Once again (for the 4th time now) Dr. C. didn’t ask you about “natural born citizen.” He asked you about the many uses of “natural born SUBJECT” in colonial and state legislation prior to the adoption of the Constitution.

    Also, I do believe you are supposed to be corresponding with Dr. C. via email rather than posting your replies to him here. Although you could do both, I suppose.

    As far as “smoking-gun proofs” go, you yourself have just admitted that the Massachusetts State Legislature. You then plead,

    Because such terms were used interchangeably at the state level does not make circumstantial evidence at the certain level.

    But it does. Because the meaning of the Constitution, as ratified and adopted into law, is the meaning as it was understood by the people and legislative bodies who ratified and adopted it.

    So we have clear, “smoking-gun” evidence that the legislative leaders in Massachusetts (who would’ve been, for the most part, the exact same people who voted to ratify the Constitution there) understood “natural born citizen” and “natural born subject,” to mean almost exactly the same thing.

    But it gets worse.

    “No man but a native, or who has resided fourteen years in America, can be chosen President.” James Iredell, Debates in the Convention of the State of North Carolina on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution.

    That’s a quote from the floor of the Constitutional ratifying convention in North Carolina. Bang. There’s another smoking gun. The delegation from North Carolina understood the Constitution they were voting on to require that the President be “a native.” Consult any dictionary of the era, and they ALL say that a native is someone who was born in a particular place.

    But it gets worse.

    “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”- James Madison, 22 May 1789

    Madison, known as “the Father of the Constitution,” was a key delegate from Virginia. And Madison tells us that place of birth, NOT parentage, is what counts when it comes to citizenship in the United States. So apparently, the folks from Virginia understood that we applied the English jus soli rule to citizenship. Bang.

    But it gets worse.

    As gorefan noted, Thomas Jefferson wrote a Citizenship law for the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1779. Okay, so I’ve looked that law up. It says that every white person born in Virginia was a citizen. That’s jus soli, again from the Commonwealth of Virginia, and from another of our most important founders. Bang. Bang.

    But it gets worse.

    How about the folks from New York? Alexander Hamilton, one of the key figures in the Constitutional Convention, tells us, as quoted by gorefan above:

    “…where so important a distinction in the Constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived.”

    Bang. Another smoking gun. Alexander Hamilton tells us that if we want to understand what terms in the Constitution mean, then we should look to the English common law. NOT to Vattel. So there’s the understanding of the most important leader from New York.

    Incidentally, John Jay was a good friend of Alexander Hamilton, and they shared very similar political views. So if you want to presume on what Jay believed, the rational place to start might be to simply assume that for the most part, he believed the same things Hamilton did.

    But it gets worse.

    “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.” – William Rawle

    You just can’t get more explicit than that. Rawle’s words are a direct, flat-out, irreconcilable contradiction with your claim. Rawle was not only an early legal expert, he was also a personal friend of George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention. He was from Philadelphia, where he went to meetings in the home of Ben Franklin, another of our very top Founders. So we can add Pennsylvania to the list, from someone who was very close to not one but at least two of our most prominent Founders.

    Bang, bang, and bang.

    This is further affirmed by the definitions in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary. Bouvier was also from Philadelphia. Bang. Another smoking gun.

    There are smoking guns all over the place. From Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and North Carolina. That’s 5 out of the 13 colonies that ratified the Constitution. That’s without even putting much effort into the search beyond this thread. There are smoking guns that are either from or very close to: Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton, and Madison. Again, without even trying very hard.

    And the result of all of these smoking guns is a bullet-riddled corpse lying dead on the floor in the middle of the room. It is your theory, Bob, that anybody ever thought that being a natural born citizen ever required both birth on US soil and two citizen parents. Sorry to have to put it exactly that way, but there it is. There are plenty of smoking guns, the people holding them are the Founders and Framers and early leaders of the various states, and they are all standing over the body of your unfortunately deceased claim, wondering exactly who they should recruit to dig the grave.

  414. Bob Gard says:
    February 9, 2013 at 3:10 pm  (Quote)

    Northland10: Nobody would argue that the original concept of Jury trial predated England jurisprudence.The flavor of our current trial by jury is, however, inherited from England.It was the system the founders already knew.It was also one of those Englishman rights being denied the colonists which resulting in our eventual separation from England (Declaration of Independence:“For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury”).

    Here is some more evidence on the English style of trial by jury:

    Those who trumpet Vattel have to argue that we broke from England and everything English (except for the language).The need to trumpet one, incorrectly applied, paragraph requires them to ignore a large reason we broke from England.We left not because we wanted to get rid of English law.Instead, it was the denial of English Law due the arrogance of Parliament and the Crown that forced us to declare our independence.

    I don’t trumpet Vattel to show that we broke with everything British.I reproduce many statements from framers and founding fathers. I wish you would read my section on Jefferson’s use of The Law of Nations to write the Declaration of Independence. He did not use Locke or Hume or other British jurists the way he did Vattel.

    You are showing me actual history. I disagree with your interpretation. I find it amazing you wouldn’t want so much of the reproduced history in complete context in my eBook that has come from $40,000 worth of old sources. Save you some money.

  415. Publius says:
    February 9, 2013 at 3:12 pm  (Quote)

    gorefan: And what was a “natural born subject” – hint look to the Colonial Charter of Georgia.

    Another hint – read Swift’s treatise on the laws of Connecticut.

    Bang. Bang. So now, it seems, we have smoking guns also from Georgia and Connecticut.

    So that makes a majority, now, of the original 13 States.

    Heck. They have lined up like a firing squad.

  416. Bob Gard says:
    February 9, 2013 at 3:13 pm  (Quote)

    gorefan: Do you not know how to search the site for key words?For exampe there are 11 matches for the word “frequently” (now 12).But there are only three matches for the phrase “Dr. Conspiracy’s mention of “frequently”” (now 4).BTW there are now even more matches for “frequently”.

    Here is your original post from February 9, 2013 at 5:52 am

    Teach me.

  417. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 9, 2013 at 3:15 pm  (Quote)

    OK, I see now. You misread my question. Given the misreading, I can see how you found it not a question easily addressed, huge in scope, and probably unfair in the context of this exchange.

    No, what I was hoping you would concede was that the term “natural born subject” as it appears in North American legislation was an English Common Law term at some point, at least before the revolution, and perhaps before 1787.

    It is my “game plan” in the debate to go slowly and to deal with small (and therefore manageable) issues. My goal, as already stated, is to arrive at consensus or at an agreement that we can’t reach consensus, and then move on.

    Bob Gard: I would like to address Dr. Conspiracy’s mention of “frequently” in his first question of The Great Debate. I listed all the cases I have come to know that used natural-born citizen in print in the world. My list does not make the term frequent.

  418. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 9, 2013 at 3:17 pm  (Quote)

    Note: I am looking at a plug-in to automatically close a thread when it reaches a specified number of comments. I may put that in and if I do, I’ll tell you how many. When the thread closes, at least on this thing, I’ll open up another thread since it is rather obvious that folks want to discuss the topic, and we’re nearing 500 comments and the “debate” only has a couple of lines.

  419. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:
    February 9, 2013 at 3:19 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: He did not use Locke or Hume or other British jurists the way he did Vattel.

    You’re so full of spit. Many of the things he talked about in the declaration were specifically from Locke and Hume.

  420. Arthur says:
    February 9, 2013 at 3:22 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: Teach me.

    On your keyboard, press “Ctrl” and then the letter “F.” A small, horizontal window will appear, usually at the bottom of your screen. Put you cursor in the window and type in a search term. Click “Next” or hit your “Enter” key. Your computer will go to every instance of the search term located on the webpage you’re on, one at a time, highlighting the term so that you can spot it easily. You can move forward or backward.

  421. gorefan says:
    February 9, 2013 at 3:24 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: Teach me.

    Are you using Internet Explorer as your web browser?

    Why did St George Tucker say that the President had to be native born?

  422. Scientist says:
    February 9, 2013 at 3:24 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: Vattel’s definition of indigenes is clear. Both parents must be citizens. I verified this with some French and Swiss friends and old dictionaries. It’s in the eBook.

    I do not accept nameless “French and Swiss friends” as authorities. I have many having lived in France. Sorry, but the more you say, the less credible your arguments become.

    “Parents must pick up their childen at 5 PM” means one or both. Prove otherwise. Real, hard, factual proof. Don’t hide behind our book. You came here. Cough up the proof.

  423. Publius says:
    February 9, 2013 at 3:25 pm  (Quote)

    gorefan: Why did St George Tucker say that the President had to be native born?

    Bang.

  424. Northland10 says:
    February 9, 2013 at 3:26 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: You are showing me actual history.

    What? Would you rather I show you fake history?

  425. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 9, 2013 at 3:28 pm  (Quote)

    Some folks have made the admirable suggestion that I should start the debate with a challenge to the translation of Vattel, specifically to the meaning of the word parens. I decided to take another direction because I want to get more into the way Bob handles evidence, than to “win” the debate on the first point.

    Another reason that I didn’t lead off with that question is that I am not a French speaker and that makes it very difficult for me to research the correct translation. I have the excellent notes from MM. Lupin and Pieniezny, which I regard with the greatest confidence, and which I commend to Mr. Gard since it will inevitably come up. However, for the purposes of the debate, I can hardly cite someone on the blog as an authority any more that Mr. Gard should cite his “French-speaking friends” in his book.

    Any citations of sources for the proper meaning of parens in a historical context would be welcome.

    I will say that Bob’s book actually addresses (although not very well IMO) the translation of parens.

  426. misha marinsky says:
    February 9, 2013 at 3:31 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: I verified this with some French and Swiss friends

    I verified with some friends that they make $500 an hour working from home.

    Arthur: Let me guess: were their full names French Fry and Swiss Cheese?

    Bob’s lawyers are the firm of Dewey, Cheatum & Howe. The actual partners are Charlie McCarthy and Mortimer Snerd.

  427. Paper says:
    February 9, 2013 at 3:35 pm  (Quote)

    Okay, okay, I’m calling the 800 number now. You convinced me. I’m buying the Natural-Born Citizen Snugee. I highly recommend it everybody. It comes with two extra naturalized night caps, and an assortment of organic dreamer slippers. It also comes with undocumented comfort and a teak reliquary of natural-born subject teas.

    Publius, does that come with free shipping like it says on the TV commercial?

    Publius: But it gets worse.

    But it gets worse.

    But it gets worse.

    But it gets worse.

    …

  428. Arthur says:
    February 9, 2013 at 3:36 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: I do not accept nameless “French and Swiss friends” as authorities. I have many having lived in France. Sorry, but the more you say, the less credible your arguments become.

    Agreed.

    And so here is Bob Gard . . . an expert on natural-born citizenship who lacks the reading comprehension to properly understand straightforward question; who cannot figure out how to properly send his comments to Dr. C.; who cannot perform a simple word search; who blusters his way through simple questions with prolix non-answers who conjures anonymous friends as authoritative sources and invents past injuries to feed his present anger at Obama.

    It is to laugh.

  429. Monkey Boy says:
    February 9, 2013 at 3:37 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard:
    Vattel’s definition of indigenes is clear. Both parents must be citizens. I verified this with some French and Swiss friends and old dictionaries. It’s in the eBook.

    I would question that bald assertion principally on the grounds that de Vattel was of German extraction living in Switzerland; consequently, as an educated person, he would have been steeped in Salic law, under which citizenship, titles and property were passed from the father.

    What would have been the citizenship of children that were the result of a union with kidnapped women from beyond the borders that de Vattel advocates?

  430. Arthur says:
    February 9, 2013 at 3:38 pm  (Quote)

    misha marinsky: Bob’s lawyers are the firm of Dewey, Cheatum & Howe. The actual partners are Charlie McCarthy and Mortimer Snerd.

    I know their paralegal: Ima Shyster.

  431. gorefan says:
    February 9, 2013 at 3:41 pm  (Quote)

    Publius: Heck. They have lined up like a firing squad.

    The problem that Bob has is the same problem that has plagued the two citizen parent birthers from the start. They cannot show when the change from anyone born in the 13 colonies was natural born, to only those born in the 13 United States to two citizen parents was natural born. Maybe he can explain it as some sort of mass hypnosis or possible divine intervention like in the movie the “Adjustment Bureau” or the intervention others like “Dark City”.

  432. Publius says:
    February 9, 2013 at 3:41 pm  (Quote)

    Paper: Publius, does that come with free shipping like it says on the TV commercial?

    Yes. Free shipping. Plus a Magic Straw that you can use to sip the juice straight out of oranges, and a bonus knife that can cut through cola and beer cans and NEVER lose its edge!

    Order now. Operators are STANDING BY! Just 3 low payments of $69.95.

    And if you order by 6pm, they’ll even throw in a free, frameable set of quotes from US v Wong Kim Ark.

  433. ballantine says:
    February 9, 2013 at 3:41 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: I don’t trumpet Vattel to show that we broke with everything British.I reproduce many statements from framers and founding fathers. I wish you would read my section on Jefferson’s use of The Law of Nations to write the Declaration of Independence. He did not use Locke or Hume or other British jurists the way he did Vattel.

    You are showing me actual history. I disagree with your interpretation. I find it amazing you wouldn’t want so much of the reproduced history in complete context in my eBook that has come from $40,000 worth of old sources. Save you some money.

    When the ink was barely dry on the Declaration, Jefferson wrote what I believe was the first citizenship statute in the United States which simply copied English law providing for jus soli for the native born and jus sanguinis for the foreign born. He departed from English law on expatriation, but England had already relaxed that rule at such time and would abandon it about he same time the United States would actually abandon it. As already discussed, American legal authorities would debate expatriation for 80 years before deciding the issue in 1868, two years before England. So, even if you somehow read Vattel into Jefferson’s Declaration, his citizenship statute had nothing to do with Vattel’s definition and he clearly didn’t connect citizenship to Vattel.

    While your lame arguments don’t make any of us to want to read your book, I really don’t understand why you would spend $40,000. Ever heard of law libraries? How about google books? Seriously, why would anyone need to buy old books to understand these issues.

  434. gorefan says:
    February 9, 2013 at 3:44 pm  (Quote)

    Arthur: On your keyboard, press “Ctrl” and then the letter “F.”

    Do you thing its wise to start him off with keyboard short cuts? I thought about taking him throught the menu bar first, it seems less complicated.

  435. Publius says:
    February 9, 2013 at 3:45 pm  (Quote)

    gorefan: The problem that Bob has is the same problem that has plagued the two citizen parent birthers from the start. They cannot show when the change from anyone born in the 13 colonies was natural born, to only those born in the 13 United States to two citizen parents was natural born.

    Just taking a stab in the dark here. Might that be because there’s no evidence any such change ever took place?

  436. Bob Gard says:
    February 9, 2013 at 3:46 pm  (Quote)

    gorefan: That’s probably true, but unlike you we base it on evidence not imaginery scenarios.I’ve not asked you for a smoking gun, I just ask you to explain the words of Tucker, Iredell and Kent.Here for the fourth or fifth time are their words:

    “That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague.” St. George Tucker 1803, “View of the Constitution of the United States with Selected Writings…”

    “No man but a native, or who has resided fourteen years in America, can be chosen President.” James Iredell, Debates in the Convention of the State of North Carolina on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution.

    “The Constitution requires (a) that the President shall be a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and that he shall have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and shall have been fourteen years a resident within the United States. Considering the greatness of the trust, and that this department is the ultimately efficient executive power in government, these restrictions will not appear altogether useless or unimportant. As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States, ambitious foreigners cannot intrigue for the office, and the qualification of birth cuts off all those inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation, and war, which have frequently and fatally harassed the elective monarchies of Germany and Poland, as well as the pontificate at Rome.” James Kent, Commentries on American Law

    Their words are explicit and require no interpretation.

    Please don’t say they were not Framers so they don’t count.That would be totally disrespectful to these Founders (Tucker was wounded at the Battle of Yorktown).Remember Axiom 6, you previously used Seybert and Smith to try and prove your point.

    Explain why you think they are wrong and that you understand the concepts better than they did.

    Tucker 1803. After the Constitution. He wasn’t a framer. I know you didn’t want me to say that. Half the requisite for natural-born citizen is to be a native-born citizen. I will grant you the same right to discard Seybert. I happen to think he was helping me prove what I concluded, but to be fair you may discard him.

    Iredell said native. That’s half the requisite to be President. He wasn’t a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. He didn’t know what it meant. Secrecy code. Full context:

    [Iredell spoke] “I met by accident with a pamphlet this morning, in which the author states, as a very serious danger, that the pope of Rome might be elected president. I confess this never struck me before, and if the author had read all the qualifications of a president, perhaps his fears might have been quieted. No man but a native, or who has resided fourteen years in America, can be chosen president. I know not all the qualifications for pope, but I believe he must be taken from the college of cardinals and probably there are many previous steps necessary before he arrives at this dignity. A native of America must have very singular good fortune, who after residing fourteen years in his own country, should go to Europe, enter into romish orders, obtain the promotion of cardinal, afterwards that of pope, and at length be so much in the confidence of his own country as to be elected president. It would be still more extraordinary if he should give up his popedom for our presidency. Sir, it is impossible to treat such idle fears with any degree of gravity. . . .” [I have gone over many documents, books, newspaper articles, and Internet sites and have never found an attendee to the Constitutional Convention that made the equivalent statement to “No man but a native, or who has resided fourteen years in America, can be chosen president.” I class that as a strong correlation supporting my thesis.]

    Mr. James Iredell on Saturday, July 26, 1788 said:
    “The British constitution, the theory of which is much admired, but which, however, is in fact liable to many objections, has divided the government into three branches. The king, who is hereditary, forms one branch, the lords and commons the two others; and no bill passes into a law without the king’s consent. This is a great constitutional support of his authority. By the proposed constitution, the president is of a very different nature from a monarch. He is to be chosen by electors appointed by the people—to be taken from among the people—to hold his office only for the short period of four years—and to be personally responsible for any abuse of the great trust reposed in him.
    In a republican government, it would be extremely dangerous to place it in the power of one man to put an absolute negative on a bill proposed by two houses, one of which represented the people, and the other the states of America. It therefore became an object of consideration, how the executive could defend itself without being a competent part of the legislature. This difficulty was happily remedied by the clause now under our consideration. The executive is not entirely at the mercy of the legislature; nor is it put in the power of the executive entirely to defeat the acts of those two important branches. . . .” Iredell went on to point out the differences in the American constitution that made it unique.

    “Monday, July 28, 1788
    [Iredell] It has been the opinion of many gentlemen, that the president should have a council. This opinion, probably, has been derived from the example in England. It would be very proper for every gentleman to consider attentively whether that example ought to be imitated by us. Although it be a respectable example, yet, in my opinion, very satisfactory reasons can be assigned for a departure from it in this constitution.
    It was very difficult, immediately on our separation from Great Britain, to disengage ourselves entirely from ideas of government we had been used to. We had been accustomed to a council under the old government, and took it for granted we ought to have one under the new. But examples ought not to be implicitly followed; and the reasons which prevail in Great Britain for a council do not apply equally to us. . . .” The founders were usually cognizant of the many differences between the American and English Constitutions. Why are some of you still looking for the meaning of natural-born citizen in Britain?

    “Mr MACLAINE first, and then Mr IREDELL, endeavored to satisfy the gentleman, by a particular explanation of the whole paragraph. It was observed that, if there should be a controversy between this state and the king of France or Spain, it must be decided in the federal court. Or if there should arise a controversy between the French king, or any other foreign power, or one of their subjects or citizens, and one of our citizens, it must be decided there also. The distinction between the words citizen and subject was explained—that the former related to individuals of popular governments, the latter to those of monarchies. As, for instance, a dispute between this state or a citizen of it, and a person in Holland. The words foreign citizen would properly refer to such persons. . . . .” Neither MaClaine or Iredell had attended the Constitutional Convention.
    Mr Iredell, . . . There are two extremes equally dangerous to liberty. These are tyranny and anarchy.—The medium between these two is the true government to protect the people. In my opinion, this Constitution is well calculated to guard against both these extremes. . . . They have power to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations. . . .”

    James Kent 1826. O.K. I won’t say it out of deference to you. I planned to treat these people in Part II.

    How about this as the best sentence in the quotes: The distinction between the words citizen and subject was explained—that the former related to individuals of popular governments, the latter to those of monarchies.

  437. gorefan says:
    February 9, 2013 at 3:53 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: I happen to think he was helping me prove what I concluded, but to be fair you may discard him.

    Oh, I don’t discard Seybert. He supports St. George Tucker.

    “the alien is thus made a native, as it were, and is fully vested with every right and privilege attached to the native, with the exception impressed on the constitution”, so what Constitutional right does a native have that a naturalized citizen does not?

  438. Publius says:
    February 9, 2013 at 3:54 pm  (Quote)

    Fortunately, old books shouldn’t change much in value. So if he has a collection worth $40,000, he shouldn’t really lose much on the deal if he ends up reselling them. As long as he paid a fair price in the first place. Heck, might even make a few bucks.

    With a collection I paid that much for, though, I think I’d make darn sure I had them insured.

  439. gorefan says:
    February 9, 2013 at 3:57 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: I planned to treat these people in Part II.

    I thought Part II was from 1840 onward?

  440. gorefan says:
    February 9, 2013 at 4:02 pm  (Quote)

    Publius: Just taking a stab in the dark here. Might that be because there’s no evidence any such change ever took place?

    Ding, ding, ding – we have a winner.

    Don Pardo, Tell him what he’s won.

  441. Publius says:
    February 9, 2013 at 4:05 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: Iredell said native. That’s half the requisite to be President. He wasn’t a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. He didn’t know what it meant.

    That loses you the debate, right there. (Not that it wasn’t lost already, several times over.)

    Iredell was a member of a delegation that ratified the Constitution. When push comes to shove (as others have pointed out) what counts more is what the people who ratified and adopted the Constitution believed it meant, even above what the Framers intended it to mean.

    I have gone over many documents, books, newspaper articles, and Internet sites and have never found an attendee to the Constitutional Convention that made the equivalent statement to “No man but a native, or who has resided fourteen years in America, can be chosen president.” I class that as a strong correlation supporting my thesis.

    This is why your work is not credible. First, you take your failure to find a smoking gun that meets your standard as “proof” of the opposite. That’s just not the case.

    Second, you fail to apply the standards equally to data that is both for and against your hypothesis.

    It is every bit as valid for you to say, “I have gone over many documents, books, newspaper articles, and Internet sites and have never found an attendee to the Constitutional Convention that said they relied on Vattel, or that two citizen parents were needed. I class that as a strong correlation against my thesis.”

    Again, such a statement is every bit as valid as the one you just made. But you don’t make THAT statement. Whatever evidence you like “supports” your claim. The same amount of evidence in the opposite direction? YOU SIMPLY IGNORE IT.

    That makes your work NOT VALID, AND NOT CREDIBLE.

  442. Monkey Boy says:
    February 9, 2013 at 4:06 pm  (Quote)

    I’ll take this lull pray that my question to Mr. Gard is not being purposely ignored. I repeat:

    What would be the citizenship of children that resulted from a union with a woman kidnapped from beyond the borders?

  443. Arthur says:
    February 9, 2013 at 4:08 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: Sir, it is impossible to treat such idle fears with any degree of gravity. . . .”

    Is it possible that Iredell was referring to Bob’s book?

  444. Don Pardo says:
    February 9, 2013 at 4:11 pm  (Quote)

    gorefan: Don Pardo, Tell him what he’s won.

    A new car!

    Yes, it’s the 2013 Sonic Hatchback by Chevy. Winner of the J.D. Power Award. Highest Ranked Vehicle Appeal Among Sub-Compact Cars!

    It’s the first and only car in its class that received a 5-star Overall Vehicle Score for safety. It’s also the first and only car in its class with 10 standard air bags. It’s a 2012 Top Safety Pick. It’s the only small car that’s built right here in America, and the only car in its class with an available turbocharged engine – offering up to 40 MPG on the highway.

    With all that power under the hood, it’s the most fun-to-drive car. As the first car to skydive, kickflip and star in a music video, Sonic is ready to take on whatever gets your blood pumping. It was built for people who try new things, seek discovery and live life to the fullest. Back to you, gorefan!

  445. Rickey says:
    February 9, 2013 at 4:11 pm  (Quote)

    C. Stanton:

    I sent him an email last night in the hopes of clarifying about any confusion on his part and have yet to get a reply. This tells me that there may have been some sort of emergency for him on the home front. Bob is not normally out of touch or unresponsive like this.

    Are you going to ask him to respond to the questions which have been raised about his affirmative action claims?

  446. Rickey says:
    February 9, 2013 at 4:12 pm  (Quote)

    aesthetocyst: Don’t forget, Gard supposedly published his government-imploding thesis in 1970 …. as an attempt to prove it could be done w/o the benefit of formal undergraduate or graduate education!

    What a tangled web Bob weaves.

    That’s a good point. So he either has a degree or he doesn’t. He applied to college during his senior year in high school or he did it after he wrote his 1000-page “thesis” on Equatorial Guinea. He either studied mathematics or political science, or neither. He lost out on a scholarship to Princeton to a female, or maybe not because females were not admitted to Princeton until 1969. Plus he had a string of adventures in Russia which sound like they came out of a James Bond novel.

    Of course, if he didn’t go to college out of high school he would have lost his student deferment and been drafted. He hasn’t mentioned anything about military exploits, so I’m guessing that he never served.

    His silence about these matters has been deafening.

  447. Dave B. says:
    February 9, 2013 at 4:13 pm  (Quote)

    Is Bob going to break the internet AGAIN? That’s why some people can’t have nice things.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Note: I am looking at a plug-in to automatically close a thread when it reaches a specified number of comments. I may put that in and if I do, I’ll tell you how many. When the thread closes, at least on this thing, I’ll open up another thread since it is rather obvious that folks want to discuss the topic, and we’re nearing 500 comments and the “debate” only has a couple of lines.

  448. Scientist says:
    February 9, 2013 at 4:20 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: Another reason that I didn’t lead off with that question is that I am not a French speaker and that makes it very difficult for me to research the correct translation. I have the excellent notes from MM. Lupin and Pieniezny, which I regard with the greatest confidence, and which I commend to Mr. Gard since it will inevitably come up. However, for the purposes of the debate, I can hardly cite someone on the blog as an authority any more that Mr. Gard should cite his “French-speaking friends” in his book.

    With all due respect, Doc, the burden of proof is not on you nor on any of us but on Mr Gard to show that Vattel’s definition excluded one citizen parent. That ought to be his first order of business, since if he can’t show that, the entire 1722 pages is not applicable to President Obama, and his title is therefore a lie.

    Now Mr Gard says Vattel was one of the most important thinkers in history so surely there are scholarly works that discuss this. If there are not and all he can do is cite nameless “French and Swiss” friends, then the debate is over and he lost.

    I certainly know 2 things: 1. Parents today in French and English includes just one; and 2. Swiss citizenship requires ONE citizen parent.

    I would call that strong circumstantial evidence against Mr Gard. Anyway, let’s clear this up and either save everyone a lot of time by ending the debate or move on knowing that Mr Gard has successfully jumped the first hurdle.

  449. JRC says:
    February 9, 2013 at 4:23 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard:
    How about this as the best sentence in the quotes: The distinction between the words citizen and subject was explained—that the former related to individuals of popular governments, the latter to those of monarchies.

    Yes exactly. Yet at the time people still used them probably out of habit and understanding that they were not under a monarch anymore. The point is that Natural born subject under a monarchy is one born in the monarchy’s domain. And a Natural born citizen is born under the domain of the popular government.

    Pennsylvania Constitution 1776

    SECT. 42. Every foreigner of good character who comes to settle in this state, having first taken an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the same, may purchase, or by other just means acquire, hold, and transfer land or other real estate; and after one year’s residence, shall be deemed a free denizen thereof, and entitled to all the rights of a natural born subject of this state, except that he shall not be capable of being elected a representative until after two years residence.

  450. Northland10 says:
    February 9, 2013 at 4:26 pm  (Quote)

    Publius: This is why your work is not credible. First, you take your failure to find a smoking gun that meets your standard as “proof” of the opposite. That’s just not the case.

    Second, you fail to apply the standards equally to data that is both for and against your hypothesis.

    He takes his credibility issue even further. He states that, since nobody attending the Constitution said “native born,” it is strong correlation for his thesis, without applying the same standard that no body said “parents must be citizens.” This is stretched further if we apply the standard to other people and governments using “native born” in that period. Where we can show others using “native born” he cannot show others using “two parents must be citizens.” Does he think that those at the convention decided to sit on their hands when others used the term “native born?”

  451. Arthur says:
    February 9, 2013 at 4:31 pm  (Quote)

    Well folks, it’s been fun, but now my papers are all graded and I don’t need to pop in here anymore to vent my spleen. Grading papers is an aggravating process that generates a lot of ill humours.

    Good luck Bob and C. Stanton . . . you need it.

    I’m off to enjoy what’s left of the weekend. Excelsior!

  452. gorefan says:
    February 9, 2013 at 4:33 pm  (Quote)

    JRC: Pennsylvania Constitution 1776

    The Vermont Constitution is also a good example:

    The Vermont Constitution of 1777,
    “SECTION XXXVIII. Every foreigner of good character, who comes to settle in this State, having first taken an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the same, may purchase, or by other just means acquire, hold, and transfer, land or other real estate; and after one years residence, shall be deemed a free denizen thereof, and intitled to all the rights of a natural born subject of this State; except that he shall not be capable of being elected a representative, until after two years residence.

    They revised the constitution in 1786, and they wrote,

    “XXXVI. Every person of good character, who comes to settle in this State, having first taken an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the same, may purchase, or. by other just means, acquire, hold and transfer land, or other real estate; and, after one year’s residence, shall be deemed a free denizen thereof, and entitled to all the rights of a natural born subject of this State, except that he shall not be capable of being elected Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, Treasurer, Counsellor, or Representative in Assembly, until after two years’ residence.”

    They changed “foreigner” to “person”, they changed the elective offices that a naturalized person could hold but they didn’t change “natural born subject” to “natural born citizen”.

    Why wouldn’t they have change it

  453. Dave B. says:
    February 9, 2013 at 4:35 pm  (Quote)

    Waldorf T. Flywheel could not be had.

    Arthur: I know their paralegal: Ima Shyster.

  454. Dave B. says:
    February 9, 2013 at 4:37 pm  (Quote)

    Hey Bob, there’s one thing I just can’t figure out. If the Constitutional Convention was so fixated on this Vattel business, and so et up with Jay’s fear of a foreign commander-in-chief, why did they make foreign-born citizens as eligible for the Presidency as George Washington?

  455. Northland10 says:
    February 9, 2013 at 4:37 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: I find it amazing you wouldn’t want so much of the reproduced history in complete context in my eBook that has come from $40,000 worth of old sources. Save you some money.

    In honesty, I do not have the inclination nor interest in wasting my hard drive space and time reading your eBook. You have stated your research methodology involves filling in gaps with Frog DNA to get you to your conclusion. This is sloppy and shows your disregard for actual history.

  456. Dave B. says:
    February 9, 2013 at 4:42 pm  (Quote)

    Someday we’re going to see Bob on the Antiques Roadshow. We’ll all go “Hey, I know that guy!” Can you imagine the poor presenter asking Bob “Could you tell us something about how you came by this collection?”

    Publius: Fortunately, old books shouldn’t change much in value. So if he has a collection worth $40,000, he shouldn’t really lose much on the deal if he ends up reselling them. As long as he paid a fair price in the first place. Heck, might even make a few bucks.

  457. JRC says:
    February 9, 2013 at 4:49 pm  (Quote)

    gorefan: The Vermont Constitution is also a good example:

    The Vermont Constitution of 1777,
    “SECTION XXXVIII. Every foreigner of good character, who comes to settle in this State, having first taken an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the same, may purchase, or by other just means acquire, hold, and transfer, land or other real estate; and after one years residence, shall be deemed a free denizen thereof, and intitled to all the rights of a natural born subject of this State; except that he shall not be capable of being elected a representative, until after two years residence.

    They revised the constitution in 1786, and they wrote,

    “XXXVI. Every person of good character, who comes to settle in this State, having first taken an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the same, may purchase, or. by other just means, acquire, hold and transfer land, or other real estate; and, after one year’s residence, shall be deemed a free denizen thereof, and entitled to all the rights of a natural born subject of this State, except that he shall not be capable of being elected Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, Treasurer, Counsellor, or Representative in Assembly, until after two years’ residence.”

    They changed “foreigner” to “person”, they changed the elective offices that a naturalized person could hold but they didn’t change “natural born subject” to “natural born citizen”.

    Why wouldn’t they have change it

    I was going to use that as well, but Vermont is somewhat a unique case. Though I would have thought that since they had shown were they would change it that after ratifying the U.S. Constitution in 1791, that they would have. My guess is that they knew that in essence they meant the same thing. And that they weren’t part of the debates leading up to the creation of the U.S. Constitution that I’m aware of (just a guess). But before ratifying the U.S. Constitution I believe that if their understanding of what a Natural Born subject or citizen had differed from the term used in the U.S. Constitution that someone would have informed them of this new definition of natural born and something written either by someone in Vermont talking about this radical new idea that departed from their historical understanding of the concept or someone writing to the Vermont delegation pointing out such a fact.

  458. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 9, 2013 at 4:53 pm  (Quote)

    And with that, you remind me of a certain task, also one that generates vexation, that I have to get done today.

    Arthur: Grading papers is an aggravating process that generates a lot of ill humours.

  459. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 9, 2013 at 5:03 pm  (Quote)

    Comments are now set to shut down site-wide at 500.

  460. Paper says:
    February 9, 2013 at 5:04 pm  (Quote)

    We’re not. Dr. C was asking you where [you think] the meaning of natural-born *subject* comes from, not citizen. Wherever it comes from, it certainly arises before America is born. So does the meaning of natural-born subject arise in English Common Law, or somewhere else in your opinion?

    Bob Gard: Why are some of you still looking for the meaning of natural-born citizen in Britain?

  461. ballantine says:
    February 9, 2013 at 5:18 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: Tucker 1803. After the Constitution. He wasn’t a framer.I know you didn’t want me to say that.Half the requisite for natural-born citizen is to be a native-born citizen. I will grant you the same right to discard Seybert. I happen to think he was helping me prove what I concluded, but to be fair you may discard him.

    Iredell said native. That’s half the requisite to be President. He wasn’t a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. He didn’t know what it meant. Secrecy code. Full context:

    [Iredell spoke]“I met by accident with a pamphlet this morning, in which the author states, as a very serious danger, that the pope of Rome might be elected president. I confess this never struck me before, and if the author had read all the qualifications of a president, perhaps his fears might have been quieted. No man but a native, or who has resided fourteen years in America, can be chosen president. I know not all the qualifications for pope, but I believe he must be taken from the college of cardinals and probably there are many previous steps necessary before he arrives at this dignity. A native of America must have very singular good fortune, who after residing fourteen years in his own country, should go to Europe, enter into romish orders, obtain the promotion of cardinal, afterwards that of pope, and at length be so much in the confidence of his own country as to be elected president. It would be still more extraordinary if he should give up his popedom for our presidency. Sir, it is impossible to treat such idle fears with any degree of gravity. . . .”[I have gone over many documents, books, newspaper articles, and Internet sites and have never found an attendee to the Constitutional Convention that made the equivalent statement to “No man but a native, or who has resided fourteen years in America, can be chosen president.” I class that as a strong correlation supporting my thesis.]

    Mr. James Iredell on Saturday, July 26, 1788 said:“The British constitution, the theory of which is much admired, but which, however, is in fact liable to many objections, has divided the government into three branches. The king, who is hereditary, forms one branch, the lords and commons the two others; and no bill passes into a law without the king’s consent. This is a great constitutional support of his authority. By the proposed constitution, the president is of a very different nature from a monarch. He is to be chosen by electors appointed by the people—to be taken from among the people—to hold his office only for the short period of four years—and to be personally responsible for any abuse of the great trust reposed in him.In a republican government, it would be extremely dangerous to place it in the power of one man to put an absolute negative on a bill proposed by two houses, one of which represented the people, and the other the states of America. It therefore became an object of consideration, how the executive could defend itself without being a competent part of the legislature. This difficulty was happily remedied by the clause now under our consideration. The executive is not entirely at the mercy of the legislature; nor is it put in the power of the executive entirely to defeat the acts of those two important branches. . . .”Iredell went on to point out the differences in the American constitution that made it unique.

    “Monday, July 28, 1788[Iredell] It has been the opinion of many gentlemen, that the president should have a council. This opinion, probably, has been derived from the example in England. It would be very proper for every gentleman to consider attentively whether that example ought to be imitated by us. Although it be a respectable example, yet, in my opinion, very satisfactory reasons can be assigned for a departure from it in this constitution.It was very difficult, immediately on our separation from Great Britain, to disengage ourselves entirely from ideas of government we had been used to. We had been accustomed to a council under the old government, and took it for granted we ought to have one under the new. But examples ought not to be implicitly followed; and the reasons which prevail in Great Britain for a council do not apply equally to us. . . .”The founders were usually cognizant of the many differences between the American and English Constitutions. Why are some of you still looking for the meaning of natural-born citizen in Britain?

    “Mr MACLAINE first, and then Mr IREDELL, endeavored to satisfy the gentleman, by a particular explanation of the whole paragraph. It was observed that, if there should be a controversy between this state and the king of France or Spain, it must be decided in the federal court. Or if there should arise a controversy between the French king, or any other foreign power, or one of their subjects or citizens, and one of our citizens, it must be decided there also. The distinction between the words citizen and subject was explained—that the former related to individuals of popular governments, the latter to those of monarchies. As, for instance, a dispute between this state or a citizen of it, and a person in Holland. The words foreign citizen would properly refer to such persons. . . . .”Neither MaClaine or Iredell had attended the Constitutional Convention.
    Mr Iredell, . . . There are two extremes equally dangerous to liberty. These are tyranny and anarchy.—The medium between these two is the true government to protect the people. In my opinion, this Constitution is well calculated to guard against both these extremes. . . . They have power to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations. . . .”

    James Kent 1826. O.K. I won’t say it out of deference to you. I planned to treat these people in Part II.

    How about this as the best sentence in the quotes: The distinction between the words citizen and subject was explained—that the former related to individuals of popular governments, the latter to those of monarchies.

    Bob dismisses anyone who was not a framer and disagrees with him, though he has no evidence any framer actually agreed with him. This is what passes as honest scholarship in the wingnut universe. In fact, we know Madison embraced jus soli and that the only thing discussed in the Convention with respect to foreign infulence was a foreign birth requirement. There is nothing in the Convention that supports Bob, seriously nothing at all.

    But, as I and several others have pointed out here, the intent of the framers is not the relevant issue. The Constution gets is legitimate force because it was approved by the people and hence the understanding of its terms by the people is what is important, not any secret meaning of the framers. This is Constitutional Law 101. Do you really think if the framers had a secret meaning that the people did not understand it would be binding on the people. Duh!

    People like Tucker, Kent, Story, Dane, Rawle, Bouvier, Swift, Iradell, Townsend and on and on, as well as the state legislatures of the time, represent our best understanding of what these terms as understood in the founding generation. This is what the Supreme Court would be interested in, something people like Bob with no training in law can never understand. Iredell may have thought “citizen” a more appropriate term that “subject” in a democratic society, something that was quite common in such period, but, like everyone else in the period, made clear that any native was a “natural born citizen” just like any native in England was a “natural born subject.” It is simply a fact that pretty much every real legal scholar of the period understand we adopted English law but only changed the terminology. If anyone wants to argue this with me, I challange you to dispute it. What Bob doesn’t understand is that all his arguments with respect to Vattel were already made to our courts long ago but were rejected as they were not supported by history or text. Sad that there are still so many amateurs around who can’t recognize settled law such as the soveriegn citizens, tax protestors and now, the birthers.

  462. Dave B. says:
    February 9, 2013 at 5:20 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: Why are some of you still looking for the meaning of natural-born citizen in Britain?

    Why are you looking for it in Switzerland?

  463. Jim says:
    February 9, 2013 at 5:31 pm  (Quote)

    In reading through this, I feel sorry for Bob. I can see why Doc tried to keep it one on one, it’d be very difficult for anyone to try to keep up with all the info and questions being thrown at him from all directions at once. So Bob, instead of trying to keep up with all the postings on this page, why don’t you just send messages to Doc directly and see if we can restart this debate fresh? Here is the contact page:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/contact-2/

    communicate with Doc only directly and once you are comfortable with it, expand your postings later. That will help you to keep from having to go different directions trying to answer everybody and lets you become more comfortable with the computer. And yes, I work in the computer field with users who are even more computer illiterate than you are, so I understand that not everybody is as savvy as most people on here.

  464. US Citizen says:
    February 9, 2013 at 5:36 pm  (Quote)

    “No man but a native, or who has resided fourteen years in America, can be chosen President.”

    Damn.. there goes Hillary Clinton.

  465. Jim says:
    February 9, 2013 at 5:40 pm  (Quote)

    US Citizen:
    “No man but a native, or who has resided fourteen years in America, can be chosen President.”

    Damn.. there goes Hillary Clinton.

    That’s what they’ll use in 3 years when Hillary runs again…I guess we’ll have to quit calling them birthers and start calling them penisers. 😀

  466. Publius says:
    February 9, 2013 at 5:53 pm  (Quote)

    Dave B.: Bob Gard: Why are some of you still looking for the meaning of natural-born citizen in Britain?

    Why are you looking for it in Switzerland?

    Indeed. We at least had a real relationship with Britain. We were, after all, the, um… Thirteen British Colonies?

    Or did I miss out somewhere that we were the Thirteen Swiss Colonies?

    All of this doesn’t even touch on the fact that we got pretty much all of our other legal terminology from England. Why should this term be different? Oh, wait. I know. Because Bob thinks John Jay talked about American citizenship over lunch with someone in England, some years after our Constitution was passed.

  467. Keith says:
    February 9, 2013 at 6:27 pm  (Quote)

    Just for the record, I am philosophically opposed to the Doc v Bob debate. For the same reason that Stephen Jay Gould refused to debate Creationists:

    “what they seek is the oxygen of respectability”, and doing so would “give them this oxygen by the mere act of engaging with them at all”. He suggests that creationists “don’t mind being beaten in an argument. What matters is that we give them recognition by bothering to argue with them in public.”

    (quote from Wikipedia)

    That said, to a great measure the very existence of this site is for discussion that gives the “oxygen of respectability” to birthers, at least for the few nanoseconds it takes to demonstrate their errors. Thereafter it exists to continue to shower them with the flood of ridiculousness.

    I do look forward to reading the debate, but suspect that the birthers, even though the lose and lose badly, will claim victory. No matter what is said, they will claim that the Doc had no counter argument.

  468. Publius says:
    February 9, 2013 at 6:37 pm  (Quote)

    Personally, I think if there’s not to be any debate regarding Obama-related conspiracy-type theories, and if those who believe in them were to be excluded from such debate, then I’m not really sure what the purpose of this site would be.

    Just sayin’.

  469. Keith says:
    February 9, 2013 at 6:44 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: Acceptance depended on the ability to pay. If one could not pay the full tuition, one had to acquire a partial scholarship before being granted acceptance. I would have been accepted if I could pay. I would probably have gotten a partial scholarship if a parent or a relative alumnus was in my family tree, especially if they had donated once in a while.

    So in otherwords, Affirmative Action was an attempt to balance out the “good ol boy” network of privileged admissions, and you would not have been allowed in, whether Affirmative Action existed or not.

    That is nothing to be ashamed about. Why didn’t you try a state school with the equal academic standing? Cal Berkeley for instance? If you tried Stanford, you obviously didn’t have a problem with the Bay area (and how could you possibly confuse Stanford, a West Coast school with an Ivy League school?).

  470. Keith says:
    February 9, 2013 at 6:50 pm  (Quote)

    Publius:
    Personally, I think if there’s not to be any debate regarding Obama-related conspiracy-type theories, and if those who believe in them were to be excluded from such debate, then I’m not really sure what the purpose of this site would be.

    Just sayin’.

    True. I thought I made that clear. Just because Gould would publicly debate Creationists, doesn’t mean he didn’t argue with them and debunk their stuff. He just wouldn’t get on a public formal stage with them because it was a lose-lose situation.

    The Doc v Bob debate will be glommed onto and twisted into fantastical Giger-esque lumps of truthiness.

  471. Keith says:
    February 9, 2013 at 6:53 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: will you buy a copy for a $3 until the supply runs out?

    No.

  472. Bob Gard says:
    February 9, 2013 at 7:01 pm  (Quote)

    Benji Franklin: Not only that, Welsh Dragon, but what are the odds that the then legal and/or literary community or for that matter, Scott himself, would have not kept nor publicized some record or announcement of such an accomplishment?

    Scott was acknowledged as being competent – he would not have shrunk from claiming authorship – or denied it, given the fact that he was presumably commissioned to do it.

    Scott idolized Vattel. Here are but a few excerpts from my chapter on Scott. Of course he is covered in other chapters, one heavily in his dealings with John Jay in the chapter about Jay and another dealing with Chitty.

    During his twenty years at Oxford, Scott read a broad range of topics but his favorites were the w Scott, on the other hand, insisted on the issues being decided by propositions supported by the Law of Nations. He drew support from Grotius, Barbeyrac, Gronovius and Cocceius. In Scott’s mind, the litmus test for deciding this case was nationality determined by locality. The goods of Englishmen resident in France were therefore liable to confiscation. Subsequently, Scott launched a discourse based on Vattel’s . 217, just five sections past . 212. : “Domicile is a fixed residence in a certain place with the intention of permanently remaining there. Hence a man does not establish a domicile in a place unless he has given sufficient signs, whether impliedly or by express declaration, of his intention to remain there. However, this declaration does not prevent him from changing his mind later on and transferring his domicile elsewhere. In this sense a person who, because of his business, remains abroad even for a long time, has only a mere residence there, without domicile.” Please make a mental note of the word “domicile;” it was changed in a later edition of Vattel’s The Law of Nations.

    These are significant changes—ſettlement for domicil and business for management of his affairs. Settlement in Samuel Jonson’s dictionaries at the time meant: “The aƈt of giving poſſeſſion by legal sanction.” Settlement narrows the concept of domicil. Buſineſs narrows the concept of management of affairs. To be honest, I would have to call the new translation a distortion of Vattel’s meaning, but I could also call it a translation that would better fit an admiralty judge’s quest for the nationality of confiscated goods.
    Scott sought answers to questions of valid neutrality during wartime mostly from Vattel and Grotius. “No act of war, Scott held, could commence within neutral territorial waters, even though it was completed on the high seas. . . . he relied on Grotius and Vattel to conclude that belligerent ships had a right of innocent passage through neutral waters and such a peaceful use of neutral waters did not vitiate a subsequent capture. . . . The right of neutrals to have their territorial waters respected was the essential basis of sovereignty of any nation.”

    Toward the end of the judgment, Scott said, “Vattel, the beſt writer upon theſe matters, explicitly admits amongſt positive contraband, ‘les bois et tout ce qui fert la conſtruƈtion et l’armament de vaiſſeaux de guerre.’”

    This stands as more correlative proof that Scott worked from the 1775 Amsterdam edition of Le Droit des Gens, where Livre III, Chapitre VII, . 112 contained this partial sentence and that Vattel was his favorite. This was a section that Scott changed a bit in the 1797 edition. This was also the section that permitted confiscating food if the naval force had a reasonable chance of starving the shoreline towns into submission. In the end, Scott concluded that the penalty for forceful resistance to visitation was the confiscation of the property withheld from search. This naturally followed the philosophies given by James Marriott during the American Revolution when he reaffirmed for Britain the right of preemption—the right of a nation to detain merchandise passing through its territories or seas, in order to afford to its subjects the preference of purchase. That covered the entire Atlantic in Britain’s view. If you think Vattel has gone out of vogue, try to turn down a search from the Coast Guard today. And, “With no more than some general principles derived from Vattel, Scott held, on the other hand, that a neutral ship could legally carry dispatches from an enemy ambassador resident to a neutral country.”

    Despite his tendency to follow the law of nations, Lord Stowell also followed “jurisdictional limits to the letter because he feared being prohibited.” This fear was discussed by “One of Scott’s successors, Dr Lushington, [who] spoke of Scott’s ‘awe of a prohibition.’ . . . and a recent legal historian wrote that Scott had an ‘intense fear of prohibition.’ Fears such as these, as much as the mental state of the king, probably contributed his desire to remain in the background about his large contributions to the 1797 edition of Vattel. Vattel was his favorite jurist, of whom he claimed once: “But I ſtand with confidence upon all fair principles of reaſon,—upon the diſtinƈt authority of Vattel,—upon the Inſtitutes of other great maritime countries, as well as thoſe of our country, when I venture to lay it down, that by the law of nations, as now underſtood, a deliberate and continued reſiſtance to ſearch, on the part of a neutral veſſel, to a lawful cruiſer, is followed by a legal conſequence of confiſcation.”

    In a case where Scott had to establish the legal existence of a class of goods which were conditional contraband, “I am aware of the favourable positions laid down upon this matter by Wolfius and Vattel, and other writers of the Continent, although Vattel expressly admits that proviſions may, under circumſtances, be treated as contraband. And I take the modern eſtablished rule to be this, that generally they are not contraband, but may become ſo under circumſtances ariſing out of the particular ſituation of the war, or the condition of the parties engaged in it. The Court muſt therefore look to the circumſtances under which this ſupply was ſent. The section cited from Vattel was from “book iii, ch. 7 ſeƈt. 112,” expressed in French, and translated by Scott. The English from the 1797 edition, Scott’s edition, read: “Commodities particularly uſeful [uſed-1793 and before] in war, and the importation of which to an enemy is prohibited, are called contraband goods. Such are arms, ammunition, timber for ſhip-building [in the French editions, ‘timber for the building and arming of war ships’], every kind of naval ſtores, horſes,—and even proviſions, in certain junƈtures, when we have hopes [“there are hopes”—in the previous English editions] of reducing the enemy by famine.” It should be noted that the main change that Scott had made to the English editions before his was in the second sentence, which in the original read: “Such are arms, military and naval ſtores, timber, horſes, and even proviſions, in certain junƈtures, when there are hopes of reducing the enemy by famine.” He changed “timber” to “timber for ſhip-building,” narrowing its compass. He also added “ammunition,” conforming to the French “les munitions de guerre.” The 1773, 1774 and 1777 French editions had already changed the original French, which had made the newer translation closer to Scott’s. There had been disputes in the past as to what kind of “timber” was included, such that timber for furniture had been confiscated, for example. These constituted the class of refinements authored by Scott and Nichol mainly to fit Scott’s vision of what Vattel should be. That meant in the future, he could let timber for furniture be restored to the proper owner without dispute. Formerly, the French phrase “les bois & tout ce qui ſert conſtruƈtion & l’armement des vaiſſeaux de guerre” allowed admiralty judges to consider anything made of wood to be a part of “l’armement.

    “And Vattel, L. iii., ſeƈt. 144 acknowledges the penalty attending the contravention of this right by neutral ſhips to be confiſcation. Even in caſes where it is poſſible that this right may be wrongfully exerciſed by cruizers, reſiſtance is not the legal remedy, as there is a regular and effeƈtual remedy, provided by all the maritime codes of Europe, in the reſponſibility which cruizers lie under to make compenſation, for any injurious exerciſe of their right, in coſts and damages.” This is noteworthy for it was one of the times that the United States also quoted Vattel as an expert in rejecting Scott’s reasoning. Another two citations followed: “That the penalty for the violent contravention of this right is the confiſcation of the property ſo withheld from viſitation and ſearch. For the proof of this I need only refer to Vattel, one of the moſt correƈt and certainly not the leaſt indulgent of modern profeſſors of public law. In Book III. c. vii, ſeƈt. 114. he expreſſes himſelf thus [The French from the 1775 Amsterdam edition follows]. . .” His 1797 translation of . 114 was this: “We cannot prevent the conveyance of contraband goods, without ſearching neutral veſſels that we meet at ſea; we have therefore a right to ſearch them. Some powerful nations have indeed, at different times, refused to ſubmit to this ſearch. [Scott had omitted a sentence from the French section and had gone on.] At preſent a neutral ſhip refuſing to be ſearched , would from that proceeding alone be condemned as a lawful prize. ” “Vattel is here to be conſidered not as a lawyer merely delivering an opinion, but as a witneſs aſſerting the faƈt—the faƈt that ſuch is the exiſting praƈtice of modern Europe. And to be ſure the only marvel in this caſe is, that he ſhould mention it as a law merely modern, when it is remembered that it is a principle, not only of the civil law, (on which great part of the of the law of nations is founded,) but of the private juriſprudence of moſt countries in Europe,—that a contumacious refuſal to ſubmit to fair inquiry infers all the penalties of conviƈted guilt.” Scott had not changed . 114 much in his version. He had made it more informal by inserting “we” into a couple of places. The original read: “Without ſearching neutral ſhips at ſea the commerce of contraband goods cannot be prevented. There is then a right of ſearching. Some powerful nations have indeed, at different times, refuſed to ſubmit to this ſearch.”

    I mentioned the correspondence between Justice Joseph Story of the United States Supreme Court and Scott. After he came to admire Scott’s judgments, he used them for guidance. They maintained their correspondence in later years and exchanged comments on judicial decisions and political affairs. At one point in their correspondence, Scott expressed a sense of pride that his judgments had been followed in the United States: “It makes me proud, indeed, that any labors of mine are approved by gentlemen of a country upon which they may sometimes have operated with apparent harshness, but who are so well capable of estimating fairly, and upon reflection, their real conformity to the law, which it was my duty to administer.” Is this a clue that Scott admired American law and that he was ready to help Americans in their analysis of the law of nations where he could? He was obviously the one who had changed “indigenes” to natural-born citizens in . 212 in the 1797 edition of Vattel’s The Law of Nations. Was he telling the Americans what natural-born citizens really meant as a favor?

    As the old adage goes, actions speak louder than words. Wheaton cited Scott’s judgments “about 225 times in the Digest. It is clear that for many doctrines in this book on prize law, Wheaton relies exclusively or primarily on Scott’s judgments.” He continued the practice of numerous citations in Elements of International Law, where Bourguignon attributed 150 occasions where Wheaton had cited Scott’s judgments. “Though occasionally, Wheaton disagreed with Scott, on some issues he explicitly stated that the rule of the British prize court should also be the rule adopted in the United States. Wheaton’s repeated use of Scott’s decisions provides the most effective testimony to Scott’s enduring influence.” In my Lawrence’s Wheaton, Elements of International Law (1863), Wheaton quotes all the international jurists extensively, including Vattel.

    Judge Story was not the only judge on the Supreme Court who served up praise for Sir William Scott. John Marshall, the Chief Justice of the United States, who changed our history with Marbury vs. Madison 5 U.S. 137 (1803), acknowledged that he often followed Scott’s judgments. “I respect Sir William Scott, as I do every truly great man; and I respect his decisions; nor should I depart from them on light grounds; but it is impossible to consider them attentively without perceiving that his mind leans strongly in favor of the captor.”

    Perhaps you may be starting to get the idea that the influence of Vattel is more than your liberal law professors have taught you?

  473. Jim says:
    February 9, 2013 at 7:02 pm  (Quote)

    Keith:

    I do look forward to reading the debate, but suspect that the birthers, even though the lose and lose badly, will claim victory. No matter what is said, they will claim that the Doc had no counter argument.

    Who cares? They’ll claim victory if Chief Justice John Jay came back from the grave and told them to each one of their faces that they are wrong…it’s the nature of the beast. If Doc doesn’t debate them one on one, they’ll claim victory. No matter what we do, we are NOT going to change their minds because that’s not the reason they don’t want President Obama in the White House…it’s just an excuse. So, I say why not get a record of Doc debunking another one, it gives a record that people who are interested can look at themselves and make their own judgment on.

  474. Keith says:
    February 9, 2013 at 7:07 pm  (Quote)

    Dave B.:
    So far no one has consulted that genuine authority on the meaning of “natural born”, Dr. McKinley Morganfield, D.D., D.Bl., U. (for Universality) of Chicago.Here’s Dr. Morganfield addressing the subject in a 1971 lecture; the first reference to “natural born” comes at about 1:38.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5IOou6qN1o
    I can also produce persuasive evidence that Dr. Morganfield discussed the matter with Sir Michael Philip Jagger at the Checkerboard Lounge.

    Outstanding point. Nominated for “Aside of the Year”.

  475. Scientist says:
    February 9, 2013 at 7:08 pm  (Quote)

    Publius: Personally, I think if there’s not to be any debate regarding Obama-related conspiracy-type theories, and if those who believe in them were to be excluded from such debate, then I’m not really sure what the purpose of this site would be

    Speaking only for myself, the value of this current thread is largely 2 fold, entertainment and the interesting psychological case of Bob Gard (which is entertaining in and of itself). Which is why, incidentally, I think discussion of his exploits and personal history is as valuable and perhaps more so than discussion of his idiotic theories, which are cerainly not new to any of us, nor even as slickly presented by Bob as by folks like Apuzzo.

    The “debate” is, I readily admit, little more than mental masturbation. Bob will never be convinced because his “conclusions” were formed before his data was ever gathered (as he himself admits) and arise largely from deep-seated personal animus, which none of us are competent to address, and certainly not over the internet.

    As far as birtherism in general, if it was ever of any consequence, it certainly is no longer. Before the election one could imagine it swaying a few critical votes (though, I believe it more likely drove turnout of pro-Obama voters, something Karl Rove, no novice in politics, knew). At this point it doesn’t matter what the birthers do-Obama is President for 4 more years. If they want to make a big fight in the Republican party over Rubio, or Jindal or Cruz, my personal prediliction is to say, “have at it”.

  476. gorefan says:
    February 9, 2013 at 7:13 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: Perhaps you may be starting to get the idea that the influence of Vattel is more than your liberal law professors have taught you?

    Chief Justice Marshall also wrote “The constitution gives to the president, in general terms, “the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States.”

    “As this power had been exercised from time immemorial by the executive of that nation whose language is our language, and to whose judicial institutions ours bear a close resemblance; we adopt their principles respecting the operation and effect of a pardon, and look into their books for the rules prescribing the manner in which it is to be used by the person who would avail himself of it.” Chief Justice Marshall, in United States v. Wilson 1833

    And Alexander Hamilton told us that the Constitutional Convention used England as the model for determining how to conduct the impeachment of public officers,

    “The model from which the idea of this institution [impeachment] has been borrowed, pointed out that course to the convention. In Great Britain it is the province of the House of Commons to prefer the impeachment, and of the House of Lords to decide upon it. Several of the State constitutions have followed the example. As well the latter, as the former, seem to have regarded the practice of impeachments as a bridle in the hands of the legislative body upon the executive servants of the government. Is not this the true light in which it ought to be regarded? ” Federalist 65

    And Alexander Hamilton told us to look to the English legal system to define the terms in the Constitution.

    “…where so important a distinction in the Constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived.”. in Legal Brief (1795)

    Your mistake is that you assume that they threw out all of the English law and replaced it with Law of Nations. Vattel was influencial but only for International Law, not for Municipal Law. For that they referred to Blackstone.

  477. Bob Gard says:
    February 9, 2013 at 7:14 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist:
    Let’s run some numbers just for fun

    Bob says he has a 2-10% chance of being wrong about the conversation between Jay and Scott 220 years ago in London.So let’s say a 95% chance of being right.

    Now let’s say there is a 90% chance Jay transmitted that information to the actual Framers (since he was not at the Convention).I’m being generous to Bob, since I think the odds were much less.

    Now let’s say there is a 50% chance the Framers had Jay’s thoughts on Vattel from Scott in mind.Again, I’m being generous to Bob-given the history of the common law and their knowledge of it, they would be hard put to vary from that.

    Now let’s give the same 50% chance to the ratifiers (fair given the lack of any documents that support Bob).

    So, 0.95 x 0.9 x 0.5 x 0.5 = 0.21Only a 21% chance that the ratifiers actually adopted the Vattel definition (again being generous to Bob).

    Now what is the Vattel definition: Born in the country to one or more citizen parents or ancestors. This is the definition used in Switzerland today and in the time of Vatttel and the meaning of what Vattel wrote in both standard French and English (I have lived in both France`and Quebec and speak decent French).

    So the odds Obama is ineligible (giving Bob every benefit of the doubt) = 0%
    For Marco Rubio and others in his situation of 0 citizen parents, 21% maximum.More likely 0%.

    I certainly wouldn’t impeach a President on a 0% chance of his being ineligible according to some guy who wrote a book on Amazon.Especially since violating the rules of a book on Amazon are not a high crime or misdemeanor.Nor would I deny a candidate the chance to run based on even a 21% chance, a number you only get by making the most favorable assumptions for Bob.

    Vattel never wrote in English. Your translation of 212 is incorrect. Two citizens, not one. Translators of The Law of Nations into Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian, which I demonstrated in my eBook, all wrote citizen parents, meaning two.

  478. Keith says:
    February 9, 2013 at 7:25 pm  (Quote)

    Publius: I figured someone would notice those two paragraphs. Have you read Bouvier’s definition of naturalized citizen?

    Yes. Page 204; bottom of left hand column.

    Thank you for the scans.

  479. Keith says:
    February 9, 2013 at 7:29 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: That was one of the excuses given.Really, it was a naked attempt to grab Canada, a precursor to the Mexican War, which also was started on false pretenses.Fortunately the brave Canucks fortified by their superior beer, repelled the dastardly invaders, preserving universal health care. Oh, Canada!Glorious and free!We stand on guard for thee!

    As facetious as Scientist makes it sound, its actually correct. The Iraqi war was supposedly about WMD, but was really about a naked grab for Government largess to Haliburton and other Cheny cronies.

    Oh. And oil.

  480. Jim says:
    February 9, 2013 at 7:29 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: Vattel never wrote in English. Your translation of 212 is incorrect. Two citizens, not one. Translators of The Law of Nations into Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian, which I demonstrated in my eBook, all wrote citizen parents, meaning two.

    He also never wrote natural born citizen, meaning your translation is faulty too.

  481. Scientist says:
    February 9, 2013 at 7:30 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: Vattel never wrote in English. Your translation of 212 is incorrect. Two citizens, not one.

    No,sir, I have lived in France and Quebec and speak French. “Les parents doivent reprendre leurs enfants avant 17h00” Parents must pick up their children by 5 PM. One parent suffices. Un parent suffit. Citizen parents = 1 or 2.

    That is how the logic of grammar works. The plural includes the singular. You should have studied that before you wasted time writing 1722 pages of bull.

  482. Bob Gard says:
    February 9, 2013 at 7:32 pm  (Quote)

    sfjeff:
    Doc,

    I think you really need to at some point address Lupin’s points.

    Lupin- who is deserved as much credibility to his credentials as Bob is- is a self described French Attorney who has demonstrated his familiarity with Vattel to all of us for months if not years.

    Lupin- a native French speaker says that Vattel never used a term that would translate to what Bob says is the definition of “natural born”.

    For all of the editions of “Law of the Nations” that Bob appears to have bought or read, I don’t see how any logic about the Founding Fathers gets around the basic point:

    Vattel never said that a Natural Born Citizen requires two citizen parents.

    His entire argument appears to rest on Vattel having done so- yet according to Lupin- a native French speaker- he absolutely never did.

    Before arguing anything else, Bob needs to establish how he can refute Lupin’s assertion.

    Vattel never wrote in English. Your translation of 212 is incorrect. Two citizens, not one. Translators of The Law of Nations into Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian, which I demonstrated in my eBook, all wrote citizen parents, meaning two.

    Vattel never wrote natural-born citizens. He wrote indigenes. You miss the whole point. Scott replaced indigenes with natural-born citizens because Jay told him face to face that Vattel’s indigenes was the inspiration for the definition of native-born citizens. There is what I call a small leap of faith but that’s the reason I need 1700 pages. This substitution for indigenes was the most drastic, incomprehensible alteration in the Law of Nations ever! Would you as a French speaker translate Indigènes into natural-born citizens? “Les Naturels ou Indigènes ſont ceaux qui ſont nés dans le pays, de parens citoyens.” How about if John Jay meant natural-born citizens to be “ſont ceaux qui ſont nés dans le pays, de parens citoyens.”? Would it make more sense then? You betcha.

  483. gorefan says:
    February 9, 2013 at 7:35 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: which I demonstrated in my eBook

    Does your e-book include this statement from James Madison?

    “Mr. DICKENSON mentioned to the House that on examining Blackstone’s Commentaries, he found that the terms, “ex post facto” related to criminal cases only; that they would not consequently restrain the States from retrospective laws in civil cases, and that some further provision for this purpose would be requisite.“ Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention

  484. Jim says:
    February 9, 2013 at 7:37 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard:
    Vattel never wrote natural-born citizens. He wrote indigenes. You miss the whole point. Scott replaced indigenes with natural-born citizens because Jay told him face to face that Vattel’s indigenes was the inspiration for the definition of native-born citizens. There is what I call a small leap of faith but that’s the reason I need 1700 pages.

    And your proof of this is what? Not your opinion, your proof please, because if it is just your opinion your book becomes a work of fiction.

  485. Dave B. says:
    February 9, 2013 at 7:41 pm  (Quote)

    Keith: Dave B.:
    So far no one has consulted that genuine authority on the meaning of “natural born”, Dr. McKinley Morganfield, D.D., D.Bl., U. (for Universality) of Chicago.Here’s Dr. Morganfield addressing the subject in a 1971 lecture; the first reference to “natural born” comes at about 1:38.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5IOou6qN1o
    I can also produce persuasive evidence that Dr. Morganfield discussed the matter with Sir Michael Philip Jagger at the Checkerboard Lounge.

    Outstanding point. Nominated for “Aside of the Year”.

    Well, if we’re talking about “plain English”, it doesn’t get much more plain, pure or powerful than that.

  486. Dave B. says:
    February 9, 2013 at 7:43 pm  (Quote)

    And because he “idolized” Vattel so much that he was willing to corrupt a translation of Vattel’s works at the drop of a salad fork.

    Jim: Scott replaced indigenes with natural-born citizens because Jay told him face to face that Vattel’s indigenes was the inspiration for the definition of native-born citizens.

  487. gorefan says:
    February 9, 2013 at 7:44 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: He wrote indigenes. You miss the whole point. Scott replaced indigenes with natural-born citizens because Jay told him face to face that Vattel’s indigenes was the inspiration for the definition of native-born citizens.

    Jay would never had said that. He would have told Scott that “Les Naturels ou Indigènes” should be translated as “The natural born, or indigenes” or possibly “The natural boorn, or natives”.

    From the July, 1781 Journal of the Continental Congress:

    “Les consuls et vice consuls respectifs ne pourront être pris que parmi les sujets naturels de la puissance qui les nommera.” French version of Treaty of Amnity

    “The respective Consuls and Vice Consuls shall only be taken from among the natural born subjects of the power nominating them.” Congressional translation of Treaty of Amnity

    “[L]es sujets naturels” is translated as “natural born subjects”. “[N}aturels” is translated as natural born, indigenes is not.

  488. Keith says:
    February 9, 2013 at 7:48 pm  (Quote)

    ballantine: Our State Department didn’t assert the full right to expatriation until 1858 and Congress didn’t proclaim it until 1868.

    Dave B.: An 1865 law provided for the forfeiture of the “rights of citizenship” of draft–dodgers and deserters, but whether the statute meant to deprive such persons of citizenship or of their civil rights is unclear.”

    There was a whole short story written about this.

    Wikipedia: The Man Without A Country

    Text: The Man Without A Country

  489. Scientist says:
    February 9, 2013 at 7:49 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: Translators of The Law of Nations into Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian, which I demonstrated in my eBook, all wrote citizen parents, meaning two.

    Those are all Latin languages and follow the same rules of grammar as French. The plural INCLUDES THE SINGULAR.

    Citizen parents = 1 or 2

    You have shown absolutely nothing that would contradict this. Zippo.

    Bob, no one here is buying the malarkey you are selling. Go back to the birther sites and peddle it to the suckers there.

  490. Bob Gard says:
    February 9, 2013 at 7:51 pm  (Quote)

    gorefan: When did Jay explain his definition of natural born to the Framers?When did the Framers explain their change of the definition of “natural born” to the rest of the country?

    Never in the public light. If Jay had, we wouldn’t be debating. Like the “hope” and “change” of today, our politicians allowed the attendees of the ratification conventions to interpret natural-born citizens any way they wanted. Because of the secrecy code in the Constitutional Convention and the off-premise meetings in taverns, cafes and drawing parlors, where the term was described in private, they could keep the meaning secret and they did. The framers did not want to alienate a single person who wasn’t a true “natural-born citizen,” who might be put off by the “discrimination” against children born after the Constitution.

    Did Obama really flesh out his hope and change? Do you think at least some of the voters would not have voted for him if he had? Our founding father politicians were better schooled in government and proficient in more languages but they operated in much the same ways. In that respect, Obama is like Lincoln, who was the farthest thing from the Great Emancipator in terms of humanitarianism. There was a short sequence of his quotes in my eBook because of the importance of lavery during the framing of the Constitution. That was another digression from my limit to the 1840s.

  491. Keith says:
    February 9, 2013 at 7:52 pm  (Quote)

    C. Stanton:
    gorefan: Do you know what a shill is in a con game?

    Quite well. And I also know how seriously to take someone who can’t spell.

    As much as I enjoy occasionally playing the “Spelling Nazi”, are you volunteering, as a professional editor, to be the editor for the entire internet?

    I would have thought that a professional editor would be a bit more understanding of typographical errors to actually judge people by them.

  492. Jim says:
    February 9, 2013 at 7:55 pm  (Quote)

    Dave B.:
    And because he “idolized” Vattel so much that he was willing to corrupt a translation of Vattel’s works at the drop of a salad fork.

    Yeah, but because he didn’t want people to know, he didn’t tell anyone else! He didn’t even write it down anywhere that they were changing the meaning of natural born citizen from what he and Scott knew it to be from all their legal training! Man, that was one tricky lawyer there…and it took Bob 220 years later to imagine what that conversation was about and “discover” who did the translation years after the Constitution was ratified. Bob, I’m sorry, I really, really, REALLY tried to keep it inside and give you every chance to present your case…but, really you got none. BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

  493. Dave B. says:
    February 9, 2013 at 7:56 pm  (Quote)

    Bob, that’s just profoundly stupid.

    Bob Gard: Because of the secrecy code in the Constitutional Convention and the off-premise meetings in taverns, cafes and drawing parlors, where the term was described in private, they could keep the meaning secret and they did. The framers did not want to alienate a single person who wasn’t a true “natural-born citizen,” who might be put off by the “discrimination” against children born after the Constitution.

  494. Northland10 says:
    February 9, 2013 at 7:57 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: . he relied on Grotius and Vattel to conclude that belligerent ships had a right of innocent passage through neutral waters and such a peaceful use of neutral waters did not vitiate a subsequent capture. . . . The right of neutrals to have their territorial waters respected was the essential basis of sovereignty of any nation.”

    So, you are stating that Scott was quoting Vattel in areas that dealt with the law of nations (i.e. international law, relations between sovereign nations, etc.). That would not be surprising since the book as the title “Law of Nations.” Most here would agree, in the area of the law of nations, Vattel was known and cited. This does not mean he was sought after in areas of domestic law such as Natural Born Citizenship and eligibility for the Presidency.

  495. donna says:
    February 9, 2013 at 8:00 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard

    did you use Weil’s “How to Be French: Nationality in the Making since 1789” for any of your research? Weil discusses french nationality prior to 1789 in his book

  496. Scientist says:
    February 9, 2013 at 8:02 pm  (Quote)

    Bob Gard: Never in the public light. If Jay had, we wouldn’t be debating. Like the “hope” and “change” of today, our politicians allowed the attendees of the ratification conventions to interpret natural-born citizens any way they wanted. Because of the secrecy code in the Constitutional Convention and the off-premise meetings in taverns, cafes and drawing parlors, where the term was described in private, they could keep the meaning secret and they did. The framers did not want to alienate a single person who wasn’t a true “natural-born citizen,” who might be put off by the “discrimination” against children born after the Constitution.

    If the meaning of the term was secret and not communicated to and accepted by those who ratified the Constitution, then it has no legal weight whatsoever.

    By your own words you have stuck the dagger into your argument and killed it dead.

  497. Bob Gard says:
    February 9, 2013 at 8:04 pm  (Quote)

    Benji Franklin: Not only that, Welsh Dragon, but what are the odds that the then legal and/or literary community or for that matter, Scott himself, would have not kept nor publicized some record or announcement of such an accomplishment?

    Scott was acknowledged as being competent – he would not have shrunk from claiming authorship – or denied it, given the fact that he was presumably commissioned to do it.

    How about losing his position as King’s Advocate to the High Court of Admiralty? George III was not a fan of any public jurist that stood behind the right of expatriation. The king ventured in and out of sanity.

    If we don’t watch out for the freedom of speech that remains in our country, it may soon vanish.

    Why did Locke not acknowledge authorship of his magnum opus under his English king? Why were some famous authors who did forced to flee the country? Bad things happened to public jurists like Grotius who went against the grain.

  498. gorefan says:
    February 9, 2013 at 8:04 pm  (Quote)

    Keith: I would have thought that a professional editor would be a bit more understanding of typographical errors to actually judge people by them.

    Here is what his buddy wrote,

    Bob Gard: There was a short sequence of his quotes in my eBook because of the importance of lavery during the framing of the Constitution.

    What is lavery? LOL. I know he meant slavery and I don’t judge him on a silly mistake. I guess i’m a little more tolerant than Mr. Stanton.

  499. Dave B. says:
    February 9, 2013 at 8:12 pm  (Quote)

    Bob’s about to run us out of comments here again. He’s gone on all kinds of tangents here, but he still can’t do Doc the courtesy of replying to the real Great Debate thread. Now he’s said that his argument is backed up by the Constitutional Convention’s secrecy. John Jay’s invention of a new understanding for natural born citizen was so secret, nobody could be allowed to know about it.
    Until Bob came along, that is.

  500. Keith says:
    February 9, 2013 at 8:13 pm  (Quote)

    Paper:
    Well,, I think there was some minor controversy about Goldwater, people talk, but he didn’t win, so even that is moot, never came to a test.And in terms of Bob Gard’s statement, he can still claim that Goldwater was not eligible (according to his lights).Don’t jump one me.I’m just saying.

    It was questioned at the time. Then when the answer was given, the questions stopped and folks got on with the election. They didn’t keep going on and on and on and on and on about it.

    Then Barry said something about “pulling the wagons in a circle” and it was all over for him.

  501. Reality Check says:
    February 9, 2013 at 8:20 pm  (Quote)

    The Great Debate thread needs to be renamed The Great Joke. It seems one of the competitors is so incompetent as to not be capable of reading and following the simplest of instructions as to how to reply. Then when he lamely attempted to reply in the wrong way he misunderstood the question.

    I cannot see any reason to further engage this buffoon. If he wishes to accept the offer I made to debate Doctor Conspiracy on my radio show I will keep the offer open a while. However, I seriously in doubt that Bob Gard could successfully follow instructions to dial into the show.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.