Arthur had a stronger case for his citizenship than Obama. His father, though not a citizen at Chester's birth, was a permanent resident of the U.S. as evidenced by his remaining here and in fact becoming a U.S. citizen.

What happened after Chester's birth can't have any impact on his "Natural Born Citizen" status the day he was born. He was either a natural born citizen the day he was born or not. What his father did later is irrelevant. You seem to have a real problem with this time travel thing.

Like I said, if you and the Republitards want to be the folks denying a Black President what was allowed for a White President based upon some minor parsing, don't go crying about "race cards". If you find yourself quacking like a duck, stop quacking.

To put the FINAL nail in this corpse filled coffin, if you are going to quote the dissenting opinion and back it, you should quote the all important conclusion of the dissenting opinion:

There would be no purpose in quoting that. It had nothing to do with the purpose of my quoting what I did, which was to show one reference to Vattel as an authoritative source in a Supreme Court case with which I had prior experience.

For your information, in my arguments referencing this case before, I was citing the majority opinion in that right of blood is insufficient without also right of soil in the establishment of natural born citizenship. The older, white-haired man in 2008 could not be a natural born Citizen of the U.S. because his right of soil was with foreign soil. Yet his case may have been much stronger than Obama's in laying claim to natural born Citizen status. It was certainly much more difficult to argue against than this case of Obama's.

Yes. When it comes to interpreting the current meaning of law, I always side with the party who's opinion is lawful and legally binding. I am a "Yes" man that way, as are every single judge in the United States. You clearly do not, that's your problem.

Dissenting opinions are important in that they are by definition the LOSING argument, and have been proven wrong. Trying to pretend that the dissenting opinion holds any weight of law is foolish.

The translation that contained the phrase "Natural Born Citizen" in English wasn't published until 1797. So the only way the exact phrase "Natural Born Citizen" could be directly attributed to Vattel would be if Ben Franklin had invented a time machine, and transported himself into the future to get the phrase from the 1797 english translation of Vattel. So all your attempts to pretend that the constitution's "Natural Born Citizen" was a product of Vattel's definition ARE fraudulent.

If you want to quote Vattel in either French or in English the way the founding fathers would have read it, go for it. Just make your point without using the phrase "Natural Born Citizen" when quoting Vattel, because that didn't appear anywhere in print until well AFTER the constitution was penned. Claiming otherwise is fraudulent.

I don't know how many times it has to be said, this thread is about discovering whatever evidence there is to understand "natural born Citizen" as was the original intent. If you have the translation of Vattel that was in use before and at the time of the writing of the Constitution, then please share quotes (and links to) the appropriate passages. Apparently you have seen it, so it is not asking you to do too much research. And though Vattel is the initial authority reference in this thread, I would hope that it would be remain only a thread about Vattel. There is much more to demonstrate in the use of Vattel throughout U.S. (and modern world history) that reference to him are not ended for this thread. His words on the subject of citizenship ring true.

The SCOTUS decision on Wong Kim Ark did not in any way impugn Vattel.

If you have authoritative quotes, primarily from the time of the founding fathers regarding natural born Citizen, that you can present, that would be most welcome.

What happened after Chester's birth can't have any impact on his "Natural Born Citizen" status the day he was born. He was either a natural born citizen the day he was born or not. What his father did later is irrelevant. You seem to have a real problem with this time travel thing.

Like I said, if you and the Republitards want to be the folks denying a Black President what was allowed for a White President based upon some minor parsing, don't go crying about "race cards". If you find yourself quacking like a duck, stop quacking.

I totally agree with you and the Democrat party that Chester Arthur was not a natural born Citizen and should not have been Vice-President, much less President. Race has nothing to do with my argument.

Like I said, if you and the Republitards want to be the folks denying a Black President what was allowed for a White President based upon some minor parsing, don't go crying about "race cards". If you find yourself quacking like a duck, stop quacking.

By this line of reasoning, Chester Arthur must have been the victim of racism, trying to remove a white guy from the Presidency.

I totally agree with you and the Democrat party that Chester Arthur was not a natural born Citizen and should not have been Vice-President, much less President. Race has nothing to do with my argument.

I've been clear and consistent that both Obama and Arthur have BOTH been lawfully elected US President. Proof of that is that both of them held the office of the US President. There is nothing like reality to prove itself true.

If you have the translation of Vattel that was in use before and at the time of the writing of the Constitution, then please share quotes (and links to) the appropriate passages. Apparently you have seen it, so it is not asking you to do too much research. .

If I provide a scan of the original text as the Founding Fathers would have read it, will you concede that Vattel wasn't the source of the phrase Natural Born Citizen, and as such, Vattel's statements cannot be the glossary definition of the phrase?

I've been clear and consistent that both Obama and Arthur have BOTH been lawfully elected US President. Proof of that is that both of them held the office of the US President. There is nothing like reality to prove itself true.

Your childish antics won't change reality.

It would be interesting to hear (in an appropriate thread) what you had to say about the Supreme Court when the Florida recount was stopped. Then compare your words of unquestioning support for majority opinions.

And SCOTUS never dealt with either Arthur's or Obama's citizenship.

I wonder if you would support the "lawfully elected" officials if ballot box stuffing were well known, yet the election results were accepted as the end of the line.

If I provide a scan of the original text as the Founding Fathers would have read it, will you concede that Vattel wasn't the source of the phrase Natural Born Citizen, and as such, Vattel's statements cannot be the glossary definition of the phrase?

It would be quite welcome to see the scanned pages. Then comparison can be made. As to the source of the exact word "natural born Citizen" you may be able demonstrate that translation was not the source. If in that translation it does not use the words "natural born citizen" as it was found in the images I was able to share, then I would certainly be able to concede that that translation did not contain that translation on those pages. It would lend reasonable support to your argument.

It would be quite welcome to see the scanned pages. Then comparison can be made. As to the source of the exact word "natural born Citizen" you may be able demonstrate that translation was not the source. If in that translation it does not use the words "natural born citizen" as it was found in the images I was able to share, then I would certainly be able to concede that that translation did not contain that translation on those pages. It would lend reasonable support to your argument.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and take you at your word. Try not to let me down... again. Here are scans of the original texts using the phrase "natives or indegenes" which is the direct translation of “Les Naturels ou indegenes”, which is the phrase that Vattel used in his original French writings.

The first is Vattel London 1760, the second is Vattel 1787 American Edition.

I hope nobody's just figuring this out. Birthers, almost by definition, have all gone off their rockers long ago.
They're victims of partisan psychosis. Any facts that don't fit their political desires will be relentlessly questioned long after any rational person has left the conversation out of frustration. Give up, it's no use dealing with them on their dubious level.

I certainly don't dispute citizenship by location of birth or by parentage. That is citizenship. What makes "natural born Citizen" is not equal to what makes "citizen". This thread is about "natural born Citizen" and a discussion of what constitutes "citizen" is most appropriate in discussing how it is distinguished from the other.

With support for your argument, what do you have in historical documents that clarifies the different types of citizen and more specifically "natural born Citizen"?

1) He couldn't have coined the phrase "Natural Born Citizen", because he wrote his stuff in French, and the founding fathers would have needed a time machine to read the first english translation in 1797 that used that phrase.

2) The 1797 translation of Vattel (that stole the phrase "Natural Born Citizen" FROM the US constitution) was heard by SCOTUS in the case of Wong Kim Ark, and SCOTUS rejected it.

I certainly don't dispute citizenship by location of birth or by parentage. That is citizenship. What makes "natural born Citizen" is not equal to what makes "citizen". This thread is about "natural born Citizen" and a discussion of what constitutes "citizen" is most appropriate in discussing how it is distinguished from the other.

With support for your argument, what do you have in historical documents that clarifies the different types of citizen and more specifically "natural born Citizen"?

I can provide that source. But before that, are you now going to concede that Vattel is out? You gave your word, will you live up to it?

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and take you at your word. Try not to let me down... again. Here are scans of the original texts using the phrase "natives or indegenes" which is the direct translation of “Les Naturels ou indegenes”, which is the phrase that Vattel used in his original French writings.

The first is Vattel London 1760, the second is Vattel 1787 American Edition.

Thank you very much for posting support for your argument. And I do concede that these two scans you presented do not use the words "natural born citizen" as do other translations.

Now, will you concede without further evidence that Vattel is a highly regarded authority on citizenship and that the founding fathers were well aware of his writings, respected his writings, and referred to them in crafting legislation and the founding documents?

And what do you have to present to establish how the founders understood the words "natural born Citizen" which they prominently included in three requirements for qualification to be President? As it was adopted without debate, certainly it was understood by all. Support your conclusions with evidence.

The only thing I'll add about this whole "Natural Born Citizen" thing is imagine if in this country you always HAD to have both parents born here for a child to be a natural born citizen? With such a nation of immigrants, I imagine there wouldn't have been too many natural born citizens.

1) He couldn't have coined the phrase "Natural Born Citizen", because he wrote his stuff in French, and the founding fathers would have needed a time machine to read the first english translation in 1797 that used that phrase.

2) The 1797 translation of Vattel (that stole the phrase "Natural Born Citizen" FROM the US constitution) was heard by SCOTUS in the case of Wong Kim Ark, and SCOTUS rejected it.

Double burn, Vattel is out.

1) You have not established that the phrase "natural born Citizen" had not existed or had not been understood prior to the writing of the Constitution. You have not established there was no translation of the word "indigenes" used among the founders. Your references to a time machine are rather trite.

2) SCOTUS didn't rule on natural born Citizen. They ruled on citizen. Their ruling depended upon the 14th Amendment and not upon what existed at the time of the founding fathers. The ruling could be seen as playing a role in the case of whether citizen at birth is equal to "natural born Citizen". Perhaps even without the 14th Amendment Wong Kim Ark would have been ruled a citizen, but that would be very speculative to discuss. The ruling is appropriate to discuss here, but not in relation to the original meaning of "natural born Citizen" as understood by the founders. It is appropriate in the discussion of how the meaning of "natural born Citizen" may have been modified by implementation of the 14th Amendment. Obviously, making that connection would be to argue for jus soli alone as qualifying not only as citizen (again by the 14th Amendment) but also as natural born citizen. I don't see how it could be argued successfully that the 14th Amendment (or any court ruling or any statute) in any way affected the "natural born Citizen" clause.

Vattel is not out. You presented interesting information about a couple translations in use at the the time of question. It is certainly a piece of the puzzle. There are many more pieces to consider.

Though Vattel is not out, Law of Nations is one of the sources to consider, and a very significant one at that. Even if you reject the connection between "natural born Citizen" and Vattel, certainly you recognize (or maybe you don't) the significance his words had on influencing how nations regard citizenship of any kind, including native, natural, and naturalized.

You may want to exclude Vattel, but the founders did not. And his words in translation are regarded as authority in many American historical documents.

If you would rather not discuss Vattel any further, then don't. Vattel is not "out". If you have other authorities you can quote, then please do.

Thank you very much for posting support for your argument. And I do concede that these two scans you presented do not use the words "natural born citizen" as do other translations.

Now, will you concede without further evidence that Vattel is a highly regarded authority on citizenship and that the founding fathers were well aware of his writings, respected his writings, and referred to them in crafting legislation and the founding documents?

.

I knew I could trust you to weasel out of your promise.

Vattel was NOT used regarding citizenship. I just proved that, and you just weaseled out of your promise.

1) You have not established that the phrase "natural born Citizen" had not existed or had not been understood prior to the writing of the Constitution. You have not established there was no translation of the word "indigenes" used among the founders. Your references to a time machine are rather trite.

2) SCOTUS didn't rule on natural born Citizen. They ruled on citizen.

Vattel is not out. You presented interesting information about a couple translations in use at the the time of question. It is certainly a piece of the puzzle. There are many more pieces to consider.

Though Vattel is not out, Law of Nations is one of the sources to consider, and a very significant one at that. Even if you reject the connection between "natural born Citizen" and Vattel, certainly you recognize (or maybe you don't) the significance his words had on influencing how nations regard citizenship of any kind, including native, natural, and naturalized.

You may want to exclude Vattel, but the founders did not. And his words in translation are regarded as authority in many American historical documents.

If you would rather not discuss Vattel any further, then don't. Vattel is not "out". If you have other authorities you can quote, then please do.

I established that "natural born citizen" never existed in VATTEL's work prior to 1797. I know where the phrase came from. And Vattel is out.

I reject Vattel's influence on citizenship, so did SCOTUS. That is why their ruling is significant. They rejected Vattel on the question of ALL citizenship.