Posted on 01/07/2016 9:32:46 PM PST by VinL
This could all be cleared up easily for Cruz.
Produce mother’s BC.
Info from Canada as to whether she ever became a Canadian citizen as her husband did at the time.
After that, it all goes away.
Sounds simple enough and it shuts people up.
Trump rally threads always get well over 500 posts.
Your assumption is incorrect.
Speak for yourself.
Well posting Vattel to support your theory is kinda of misleading. When every one of the noted lawyers and scholars of the past fifty years, say that Blackstone was the source that the founding fathers used more frequently for these matters.
What did Benjamin Franklin say? He was there, after all. Benjamin Franklin upholds the Vattel reference. He was there. “The past fifty years” rather defines the problem, does it not? What about the FOUR Supreme court decisions which reference Vattel in the matter of Natural Born Citizen? The suggestion to turn Hamilton’s use of the word Citizen to Natural Born Citizen was made in a letter to George Washington, Chair of the Constitutional committee. The writer was John Jay, who was to become the First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Vattel was the source, not Blackstone. Blackstone did not write the Law of Nations, Vattel’s international treatise on Natural Law. See Book 1, Chpt. XIX.
I never said Blackstone wrote the law of nations. I said that Blackstone , an Englishman and noted lawyer of the day, from which our ENGLISH descended founding fathers(since we were a British Colony after all.) based much of our legal code. You can’t tell me that our founding fathers used English law for everything except citizenship, and decided to use a Swiss philosopher instead. Now I will concede that the founding fathers were well versed in current day philosophy, legal research, other scientific works created through out the civilized world. However, why would they study both, and decide to base their legal system off of the English one, rather than on the Swiss? or create their own?
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
I say again Natural Law supersedes government law and Natural Law is what gave us the right to be our own nation. Government law said the founders were traitors, Natural said they were patriots. Government law says two men can get married Natural Law says marriage is between a man and a woman. Only a Natural (law) Born Citizen may constitutionally serve a President of the United States.
There are three types of citizenship
* Natural Born Citizen, two citizen parents born on soil (exceptions for foreign born if parents are abroad in service to country)
* Citizen by birth, foreign born to citizen parent(s)
* Naturalized citizen, a person made a citizen by statute.
I note on the following
The authors cite to the Naturalization Act of 1790 and ignore the fact that the Naturalization Act of 1795, with the lead of then-Rep. James Madison and with the approval of President George Washington, repealed it and specifically changed "shall be considered as natural born citizens" to "shall be considered as citizens of the United States."
James Madison the "father of the Constitution" changed the wording from "natural born citizen" to "citizen". Madison was no dope and the change was to prevent a foreign born from becoming Commander in Chief. But this also serves to illustrate that "citizen at birth" does not mean "natural born citizen".
See more at
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/tag/harvard-law-review/
A natural born citizen is so because of Natural Law not government laws. Some one born on soil with two citizen parents is a natural born citizen because no other sovereign but the sovereign of the soil he was born on has any claim to his elegance.
Correct
Does anyone really believe the founders would consider say an anchor baby with Chinese parents a natural born citizen that would be eligible to serve as POTUS? What about the children of all the trophy wives living in the middle east or Russia are those all natural born citizens and also eligible to serve as POTUS?
Some adult female gets infatuated with say an ISIS fighter and goes to Syria, gets knocked up and has a child. That child lives with his dad until he is an adult then the child comes to the USA and that child is a NBC and can run for president? This scenario is exactly why the founders put the NBC clause into the Constitution. Void it and you or your children will regret it.
You are mixing things. It has been clearly shown that Vattel’s Law of Nations was the reference for the phrase “Native Born” as intended in our constitution. Vattel was not simply a philosopher as you suggest, but was a Diplomat and legal EXPERT. His theories laid the foundation of international Law and he was quite known and respected by our Founding Fathers. Franklin said of Vattel’s book and I quote, ,(it) “has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress now sitting”. Franklin had received three copies of the book in its original French and thanked the sender thus: “It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising State make it necessary to frequently consult the Law of Nations.”
The fact that our FORM of Litigation or “legal code” was based on British Common Law, rather than Roman Law as was chosen by France, is a matter well settled. This does not, however, mean that our Founding Fathers were not aware of, and had not studied, the work of Vattel. Vattel was Swiss and wrote in French, with which most, if not all, of our Founding Fathers were conversant. French IS even today, the International Language of political discourse. Why do you think each and every thing in the United Nations is published in TWO languages, English and French. English is the International Language of Commerce, and French is the International Diplomatic Language.
I repeat,it is not a question of basing our FORM of law on “Swiss” law. Vattel set the norms of INTERNATIONAL LAW. Our forefathers were much more intelligent and well versed, than most of those who occupy our government today.
I suggest you read E. de Vattel’s Law of Nations, Chapter XIX and find out for yourself.
By the way, George Washington had two copies of The Law of Nations.
I never said that the founding fathers hadn’t read Vattel or appreciated it. You sort of glossed over the fact that our entire legal code is based on the English one they were familiar with, and not any other. Why would they do this for everything else except citizenship. Native birth, and natural birth are different. Native would refer to the location of ones
birth, while natural would refer to the fact, of not needing an artificial conferring of citizenship. What does the fact of the UN and the worlds use of french have to do with anything. Also I don’t place a whole lot of faith in INTERNATIONAL law as it is all about tearing nations down, and subjugating them into a world government.
READ Vattel;’s treatise and MAYBE you will understand some of it. Hopefully. You are arguing a mixed bag. TRY to understand what i said. You just might learn something.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.