and are in descending order (by date/time). The most recent comment being at the bottom of the quotes.
Who knows (aside from "Joe") if this is true that such papers exist. It is, however, very plausible that many documents from the founders are not cataloged in the L.O.C. or elsewhere in public view.
Could be of huge significance...
Check on whereabouts of "HistorianDorisKearnsGoodwad."
Obama’s Achilles heel — Natural Born Citizenship
Examiner.com | 10-15-2009 | Dianna Cotter
Posted on 10/15/2009 2:13:26 PM PDT by Danae
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2363369/posts
|
|
|||
Gods |
Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution. |
||
|
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
I hope they guard those documents with their lives plus make 20 copies and mail them to a number of the bloggers working this issue.
This could be a very important find.
Vattel’s Influence on the term
a Natural Born Citizen
What is a natural born citizen? Where did the framers come up with this term? Where was it used before? So many questions, and the answers are right there if anyone wishes to search out the truth.
The term Natural born Citizen appears in our Constitution, in Article 1, Section 2, with these words, “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”
Before the Constitution the closest reference we have to Natural Born Citizen is from the legal treatise “the Law of Nations,” written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758. In book one chapter 19,
§ 212. Of the citizens and natives.
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
“Please note that the correct title of Vattel’s Book I, Chapter 19, section 212, is “Of the citizens and naturals”. It is not “Of citizens and natives” as it was originally translated into English. While other translation errors were corrected in reprints, that 1759 translation error was never corrected in reprints. The error was made by translators in London operating under English law, and was mis-translated in error, or was possibly translated to suit their needs to convey a different meaning to Vattel to the English only reader. In French, as a noun, native is rendered as “originaire” or “indigene”, not as “naturel”. For “naturel” to mean native would need to be used as an adjective. In fact when Vattel defines “natural born citizens” in the second sentence of section 212 after defining general or ordinary citizens in the first sentence, you see that he uses the word “indigenes” for natives along with “Les naturels” in that sentence. He used the word “naturels” to emphasize clearly who he was defining as those who were born in the country of two citizens of the country. Also, when we read Vattel, we must understand that Vattel’s use of the word “natives” in 1758 is not to be read with modern day various alternative usages of that word. You must read it in the full context of sentence 2 of section 212 to fully understand what Vattel was defining from natural law, i.e., natural born citizenship of a country. Please see the photograph of the original French for Chapter 19, Section 212, here in the original French if you have any doubts. Please do not simply look at the title as some have suggested that is all you need to do. Vattel makes it quite clear he is not speaking of natives in this context as someone simply born in a country, but of natural born citizens, those born in the country of two citizens of the country. Our founding Fathers were men of high intellectual abilities, many were conversant in French, the diplomatic language of that time period. Benjamin Franklin had ordered 3 copies of the French Edition of “Le droit des gens,” which the deferred to as the authoritative version as to what Vattel wrote and what Vattel meant and intended to elucidate.”.
This is a good point. Most of the pro-usurper agitation comes from people who can't even read French, much less Latin or Greek. Ignorance is at a pandemic stage here in 2009.
Please ping me to further information on these papers, rxsid.
But these are big books. Where's the evidence that the Founders agreed with Vattel on this specific topic? As a continental thinker Vattel's views on this matter may be different from those of the British tradition that was the foundation of our system of laws. To get closer to the truth on this you'd have to look at other occurrences of the term "natural born citizen" -- Blackstone's for example. They many not coincide with Vattel's.
When he says he's got the Adams papers does he mean the set that was put out by the Harvard University Press or are we supposed to believe he's got the original documents lying around the house? And when somebody says they trace their ancestry from a Celtic Irish king it's one of those red flags that they're probably not all there or all right in the head.
They specified age and minimum term of residence within the US. Why would they leave the term “Natural born citizen”, that’s in the same paragraph, up for intrepretation? Because they didn’t.
Having spent a fair amount of time tracking down my own early paternal genealogy in England, and apparently before that, Ireland, I cannot say "BS" loudly enough to this.
Are there papers extant, in private hands, that could shed light upon this matter? I don't doubt that it's a possibility.
But then, the poster goes on to claim some sort of ancient hereditary state of lawyerliness through an Irish clan that he says is English, from which he could not possibly have proved himself to have descended. At most, it's the legendary origin of his surname, if Lawlor. Very, very weird.
Someone is prone to flights of fancy, and self-aggrandizement. This throws the other familial claims, rather grand in and of themselves but not stretching credulity quite so far, into question.
It's just another colmado_naranja scammer, imho.
BLESSED BE THE NAME OF THE LORD.
LET ALL TRAITORS AND DESTOYERS FALL IN THEIR OWN PIT.
LET ALL SHAMEFUL TRAITORS AND DESTOYERS BEAR MAXIMUM PENALTY AND MAXIMUM SHAME.
LET ALL TRATITORS AND DESTROYERS BE NEUTERED IN EVERY WAY POSSIBLE that they no longer plague decent people in the land of the living and those yearning for freedom and justice.
BLESSED BE THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS, KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.
If this is true, why are they not in a museum, and why have I never read about them (not that I was shut out or anything, I'm just a big history fan and thought I might have run across a mention)
-PJ
This is great.
However, it is critical to know and communicate that Emmerich de Vattel was not their source, but a resource. He dictated nothing. He essentially reported upon the established international law (including natural law) of the time.
They used it as an imperfect map, not as the mandates of a design.
Also, by the time of the writing of the Constitution, they had to refer to international law constantly, in determining how the states were to behave with each other, under the Articles of Confederation. So, it is absurd for Obamunist revisionists to assert that international/natural law was a nebulous and undefined set of jargon, especially when it comes to the terms used in the U.S. Constitution.
These matters are brought out (too quietly, so far, IMHO) by the Undead Revolution and Zapem. Leo Donofrio is helping, but is kind of westwardly distracted now.
THE MORE RESEARCH IS DONE ON THIS, THE MORE LEGAL VERACITY WILL BE FOUND.
1. I see a lot being made over the sentence, "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." Some seem to think that the use of the plural "parents" must mean both parents have to be citizens. But how would they have written it if they really did only mean one--"those born in the country, of a parent who is a citizen"? Doesn't that sound weird, like all NBCs must have the same parent? One might argue that they could easily have written "...of at least one parent who is a citizen" if that's what they meant; but one could also argue that they could even more easily have written "...of two parents who are citizens" if that was important. The argument from grammar seems weak to me, and I'm wondering how you think it should have been worded.
2. I also see a lot made about "those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers," and the assertion that citizenship cannot be passed through the mother unless the father is dead. I can see that flying in 1758 France, but does anyone really think that in 2009 America a court is going to rule that males are somehow more able to transmit citizenship than females?