Posted on 06/22/2010 3:40:28 PM PDT by bushpilot1
In the Journals of the Continental Congress there is a translation of the French word naturels to natural born. Meaning the Founders understood Vattel's naturels to mean natural born.
The document and its translation by the Founders must have been overlooked over the years by the courts, congress and the news media.
In French.
ARTICLE III Les consuls et vice consuls respectifs ne pourront être pris que parmi les sujets naturels de la puissance qui les nommera.
The Founders Translation.
The respective Consuls and Vice Consuls shall only be taken from among the natural born subjects of the power nominating them.
Item 8 of 77
Farrand's Records —YATES Wednesday, June 27th, 1787.
PREVIOUS SECTION .. NEXT SECTION .. NAVIGATOR
The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand's Records, Volume 1]
YATES Wednesday, June 27th, 1787.
The first principle of government is founded on the natural rights of individuals, and in perfect equality. Locke, Vattel, Lord Somers, and Dr. Priestly, all confirm this principle. This principle of equality, when applied to individuals, is lost in some degree, when he becomes a member of a society, to which it is transferred; and this society, by the name of state or kingdom, is, with respect to others, again on a perfect footing of equality—a right to govern themselves as they please. Nor can any other state, of right, deprive them of this equality. If such a state confederates, it is intended for the good of the whole; and if it again confederate, those rights must be well guarded. Nor can any state demand a surrender of any of those rights; if it can, equality is already destroyed. We must treat as free states with each other, upon the same terms of equality that men, originally formed themselves into societies. Vattel, Rutherford and Locke, are united in support of the position, that states, as to each other, are in a state of nature.
Get it yet? You are very ignorant and that is not the same as stupid and I have NEVER called you STUPID! The fact that you are now down to insults instead of fact shoes your desperation to make yourself believable to yourself.
The Committee [Mr. James Madison, Mr. Hugh Williamson and Mr. Thomas Mifflin] instructed on the motion of Col. [Theodorick] Bland to report a list of books proper for the use of Congress, recommend that the Superintendt. of Finance and the Secy. of Congress be empowered to take order for procuring the books enumerated below: the same when procured to be under the care of the said Secy.
Encyclopedie Méthodique.
Dictionaire de l’homme d’État.
Law of Nature and Nations
Cudworth’s Intellectual System.
Cumberland’s Law of Nature.
Wolfius’s Law of Nature.
Hutchinson’s Moral Philosophy.
Beller’s delineation of universal Law.
Ferguson’s analysis of Mor: Philosophy.
Rutherforth’s institutes of Natural Law.
Page 84 | Page image
Grotius’s Law of Nature and Nations.
Puffendorf’s Law of Nature and Nations with notes by Barbeyrac.
Puffendorf de officio hominis et civis.
Vattell’s Law of Nature and Nations.
Vattell’s Questions in Natural Law.
Burlamaque’s Law of Nature and Nations.
Grotius’s Mare Liberum.
Selden’s Mare clausum.
Molloy de jure maritimo.
Beaux lex mercatoria.
Jacob’s lex mercatoria.
Lee on captures.
Ordinances of Marine of France.
Admiralty Laws of G. Britain.
do. of the several others of Europe.
Wiquefort’s Ambassador.
El Embaxador, par Antoine de Vera.
L’Ambasciatore Politice Christiano, par le prince Charles Marie Carafe.
De la charge et dignité de l’ambassadeur, par Jean Hotman.
Le Ministre public dans les cours etrangeres &c. par J. de la Sarras du Franquesnay.
De foro legatorum par Bynkershock traduit en Francois par Barbeyrac, sous le titre de traite du Juge competent des Ambassadeurs &c. with all his other works.
De legationibus par Alberie Gentilis.
Legatus par Charles Paschal.
Legatus par Frederick Marsalaer.
Treaties and Negociations
Corps diplomatique.
Rymer’s foedera.
A complete collection of Treaties.
Abbe Mably’s public law of Europe—principles of Negociation—other political works.
De la manierre de negocier avec les souverains &c. par Callier.
Discours sur l’art de negocier par Pequet.
Histoire du traité de Westphalie par le P. Bougeant.
Burche’s view of negociations between F. & Engld.
Page 85 | Page image
Negociations du P. Jeannin,
du Cardinal D’ossat.
du Maral. d’Estrades.
de la paix de Westphalie.
du Maral. de Noailles.
de la paix d’Utrecht.
des autres paix de ce siecle.
Lamborty’s Memoirs & negociations.
Cardl. Mazarine’s letters.
De Witt’s letters.
General History
Universal History.
Modern History.
Raleigh’s History of the World.
Voltaire’s Historical works.
Abbé Millot Histoire generale.
Dictionaire of Bayle.
Burnett’s History of his own times.
Mosheim’s Ecclesiastical History.
Warher’s Eccles: History of England.
Chronology
Lenglet du frenoy tablettes chronologiques de l’Histoire universelle.
Blair’s chronological tables.
Geography
Bushing’s Universal Geography.
Smith’s System of Geography.
Guthrie’s Geographical Grammar.
La Martinier Dictionaire Geographique.
Salmon’s Gazetteer.
Priestly’s Historical Chart.
Biographical Chart.
Jeffery’s Historical & Chronological Chart
Collection of best maps.
Particular History
GRAECIAN.
Goldsmith’s History of Greece.
Stanyan’s History of Greece.
Potter’s Grecian Antiquities.
Page 86 | Page image
ROMAN.
Coussin Histoire Romaine.
Histoire de Constantinople.
Goldsmith’s Roman History.
Hooke’s Roman History.
Vertot’s Revolutions of Rome.
Gibbon’s on the decline of the Rom: Empire.
Kennet’s Roman Antiquities.
Plutarch’s Lived.
ITALIAN.
Guicciardini’s History.
Giannini History of Naples.
Nani History of Venice.
Padre Paolo on the Venetian Republic.
GERMAN & HOLLAND.
Histoire d’Allemagne par Barre.
PfeffeL Abregé chronolo: do l’hist: d’Allema:
Puffendorf de origine imperii german: notis Titii.
Robinson’s History of Charles V:
Bentivoglio History of war in Flanders.
Le Clerk’s History of the United Provinces.
Strada.
Grotius de rebus Belgicis:
Do Witt’s State of Holland.
Watson’s History of Philip II.
FRENCH.
Histoire de France de l’abbé Veli Villaret, Garnier et continueteurs.
D’avila History of Civil Wars of France.
Philip de Comines.
Sully’s memoirs.
Prefixe Henry IV.
Cardinal de Retz Memoirs.
Voltaire’s Louis XIV.
BRITISH.
Matthew Paris by Watts.
William of Malmbury.
Polydore Virgil.
Rappin’s History of England.
Hume’s History of England.
Page 87 | Page image
Kennett’s English History.
Clarendon’s History.
Ludlow’s Memoirs.
Littleton’s History of Henry II.
Parliamentary History.
Parliamentary debates.
Annual Register.
History of the Reign of Geo: III.
Cabàla.
Rushworth’s Collection.
Thurloe’s State papers.
Parliamentary Register.
SCOTCH.
Robinson’s History of Scotland.
IRISH.
Lelaud’s History of Ireland.
SPANISH & PORTUGUESE.
Mariana’s History of Spain.
Miniana.
Revolutions d’Espagne du P. D’Orleans du Vertot.
Revolutions of Portugal by Vertot.
PRUSSIAN.
Memoirs of the House of Brandenburg.
RUSSIAN.
History of Peter the Great by Voltaire.
DANISH.
Molesworth’s account of Denmark.
History of Denmark by Mallet.
SWEEDISH.
Dallin’s History of Sweeden.
Mallet’s form of govt. in Sweeden.
Vertot’s Revolutions of Sweeden.
Sheridan’s do. of do.
POLISH.
Abbe Coyer’s History of J. Sobiesky.
Williams History of the Nortn. Govts.
Page 88 | Page image
SWISS.
Stanyan’s History of Switzerland.
GENEVAN.
Keate’s History of Geneva.
TURKES.
Mignot’s History of the Ottoman Empire. P. Recaut’s do.
CHINESE.
Duhaldes History of China.
Politics.
Plato’s Republic by Spend.
Aristotles do.
More’s Utopia.
Filmer on Government.
Hooker’s Ecclesiastical polity.
Hobbe’s works.
Harrington’s works.
Sidney on Government.
Locke on Government.
Macchiavelli’s works.
Father Paul on the Venetian Republic.
Montagu’s rise & fall of antient republics.
Montesquieu’s works.
Beccaria’s works.
Ferguson’s History of Civil Society.
Miller on distinction of Ranks in Society.
Steuart’s principles of Political economy.
Smith on the wealth of Nations.
Baron Biefield’s political Institutions.
Histoire politique du siecle par Maubert.
Richlieu’s Political Testament.
de Witt’s Maxims.
Petty’s political Arithmetic.
Wallace on the numbers of mankind.
Davenant’s Works.
Temple’s works.
Hume’s political essays.
Postlethwayt’s works.
Page 89 | Page image
Anderson’s Dictionary of Commerce.
Burgh’s political disquisitions.
Price’s Political works.
Gee on trade.
Child on trade.
Tucker on trade.
Law on money & trade.
Arbuthnot on weights & measures.
Locke on money.
Lowndes on do.
Necker on Finance.
Law.
Justinian’s Institutes by Harris.
Codex juris civilis.
Taylor’s elements of Civil Law.
Domat’s Civil Law.
Coke’s Institutes.
Blackstone’s Commentaries.
Cunningham’s Law Dictionary.
Statutes at large by Rufhead.
Lex Parliamentaria.
Cunningham’s law of Exchange.
Collection of Laws to prevent frauds in the Customs.
Book of rates.
Clarke’s practice of Courts of Admiralty.
Fredencian Code.
War.
Vauban’s Works.
Bellidore’s Works.
Fouquier’s Memoirs.
Marine.
Falconer’s Universal Dictionary of Marine.
Burchett’s Naval History.
History of the Several Voyages round the Globe.
Murray’s Ship Building and Navigation.
Collection of best Charts.
Naval architecture. By Marmaduke Stalkartt. Fol. £6.6.
Languages.
Best latin Dictionary with best grammar & dictionary of each of the modem languages.
Page 90 | Page image
America.
Les nouvelles descouverts dans l’Amerique Septentrionale. Paris 1697.
Forti’s account of la Sale’s voiage to N. America.
Histoire de l’Amerique Septentrionale par Baquiville de la Poterie. Rouen 1722.
Discription geographique et historique des cotes de l’Amerique Septenle. par le Sieur Denys.
Oldmixon’s Brit: Empire in America.
Kalm’s travels through N. America.
Carver’s travels through N. America.
Ogilvie’s America.
Novus orbis, autore Joanne de Laet: fol: Basiliae 1555.
Novæ novi orbis historiæ, i.e. rerum ab Hispanis in India occidental gestarum calvetonis Geneva 1578.
Wafer’s Voyages.
Dampier’s Voyages.
Chancellor’s.
Borough’s.
Forbisher’s.
Hudson’s.
Davis’s.
Baffin’s.
James’s.
Wood’s.
Ellis’s voyage to Hudson’s Bay.
Voyage au pays des Hurons par Gabl. Sabard Theodat. Paris 1632.
Moeurs des Sauvages de l’Amerique par Lafitau.
Adair’s History of the American Savages.
Hennepin’s Voyages.
La Hontan’s do.
Jone’s Journal to the Indian nations.
Voyage de la nouvelle France par le Sieur Champlain.
Histoire de la Nouvelle France par l’Escarbot. Paris.
Histoire de la Nle. France avec les fastes chronologiques du nouveau monde par le pere Charlevoix.
Memoirs des rois de France & de l’Angleterre sur les possessions, &c. en Amerique 1755. 4 Vol: 4o
Relation d’un voyage en Acadie par Dierville. Rouen 1708.
Josselyn’s account of New England.
Thomas’s account of Pennsylva. & N. Jersey.
Page 91 | Page image
Purchases Pilgrimage. 5 Vol: fol:
Hackluyt’s Voyages.
Abbe Reynal’s Hist: Pol: & Philos: of East & W. Indies.
Robinson’s History of America.
Russell’s Hist: of ... do.
Colden’s History of the 5 Nations.
Burke’s account of the Europ: Settlemts. in America.
Douglas’s Summary.
Collection of Charters.
Neal’s History of New England.
Prince’s Chronological History of N. England.
Tracts relating to N. England by Cotton Mather.
Mather’s ecclesiastical History of N. England
Hubbard’s History of N. England.
Morton’s New England’s Memorial.
Hutchinson’s History of Massachusetts bay.
Collection of papers relating to the History of do.
Smith’s History of N. York.
Smith’s History of N. Jersey.
Historical review of Pennsa. byFranklyn.
Franklin’s other works.
Smith’s History of Virga.
Beverley’s do. of do.
Keith’s do. of do.
Stith’s do. of do.
De incolis Virginiæ ab Anglico Thoma Heriot.
Discourses of Virginia.
Virginia by E. W.
Jones’s present State of Virginia.
A discourse & view of Virga. by Sr. Wm. Berkeley Govr. 1663.
An account of the life & death of Nat: Bacon. 1677.
History of the present State of Virginia.
A Short collection of the most remarkable passages from the original to the dissolution of the Virga. Company. 1651.
Lederer’s discoveries in Virginia and Carolina in 1669 & 1670, by Sr. Wm. Talbot. 1672.
Brickell’s History of North Carolina.
Lawson’s do. of do.
Description of South Carolina with its civil Natural and commercial History. 1762.
Huet’s History S. Carolina.
Collection of papers relative to Georgia.
Page 92 | Page image
Laws of each of the United States.
All Treaties entered into with the natives of N. America.
All the political tracts which have been or may be published & may be judged of sufficient importance.
Brown’s History of Jamaica.
History of Barbadoes.
Garcilasso de la Vega’s History of Florida.
Cox’s Account of Florida. Romans’s History of Florida.
Memoirs sur la Louisiane par du Pratz.
Description de la Louisiane par Hennepin.
Bossu’s travels through Louisiane.
Venegas’s History of California.
Muratori il christianissimo felice.
Voyages et descouverts des Espagnols dans les Indes occidentales par Don Bernardo de las casas.
Herrera’s History of the Spanish colonies in America.
de Solis’s History of the Conquest of Mexico by F. Cortez.
Voyages de Gage. Houston’s Memoirs.
Bouguer voyage au Perou.
Garcilasso de la Vega’s History of the Incas of Perou.
Histoires des Guerres civiles des Espagnols dans des Indes, de Garcilasso de la Vega.
Histoire de l’Orenoque par Gumilia.
Bancroft’s Natural History of Guiana. Les voyages de Cereal. 1722.
Falkner’s description of Patagonia.
Nouveau voyage aux isles de l’Amerique.
Histoire de S(t). Domingue par Charlevoix.
Chanvalon’s Voyage it la Martinique
Acuogna’s relation of the river of Amazons.
Tecko’s History of Paraguay.1
National debt, one hundred and forty millions; ten millions, the peace establishment; twenty millions, the whole current cash of the nation. Blackstone. I never read anybody that better understood the subject. For the state of the revenue he calculates the taxes of Ireland and England; taxes of Britain, perpetual and annual; funds, three, the aggregate, general, and South Sea; taxes, upon every article of luxuries and necessaries. These funds are mortgaged, for the civil list, eight hundred thousand pounds, as well as the interest of the debt.
Mr. DICKINSON mentioned to the House, that, on examining Blackstone's Commentaries, he found that the term "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.
Mr. Hamilton. The course of my experience in human affairs might perhaps restrain me from saying much on this subject. I shall, however, give birth to some of the observations I have made during the course of this debate. The gentleman from Maryland has been at great pains to establish positions which are not denied. Many of them, as drawn from the best writers on government, are become almost self-evident principles. But I doubt the propriety of his application of those principles in the present discussion. He deduces from them the necessity that states entering into a confederacy must retain the equality of votes--this position cannot be correct--Facts plainly contradict it. The parliament of Great Britain asserted a supremacy over the whole empire, and the celebrated Judge Blackstone labors for the legality of it.
Mr. MADISON, instead of being alarmed, had no doubt but the Constitution would increase, rather than decrease, the security of territorial rights and commercial advantages, as it would augment the strength and respectability of the country. The honorable gentleman, says he, has said we are making great innovations in extending the force of treaties. Are not treaties the law of the land in England? I will refer you to a book which is in every man's hand--Blackstone's Commentaries. It will inform you that the treaties made by the king are to be the supreme law of the land.
Mr. GEORGE NICHOLAS again drew a parallel between the power of the king of Great Britain and that of Congress, with respect to making treaties. He contended that they were on the same foundation, and that every possible security which existed in the one instance was to be found in the other. To prove that there was no constitutional limit to the king's power of making treaties, and that treaties, when once by him made, were the supreme law of the land, he quoted the following lines in Blackstone's Commentaries, vol. i. page 257: "It is also the king's prerogative to make treaties, leagues, and alliances, with foreign states and princes; for it is, by the law of nations, essential to the goodness of a league, that it be made by the sovereign power; and then it is binding upon the whole community; and in England the sovereign power, quoad hoc, is vested in the person of the king. Whatever contracts, therefore, he engages in, no other power in the kingdom can legally delay, resist, or annul." A further proof, says Mr. Nicholas, that there is no limitation in this respect, is afforded by what he adds: "And yet, lest this plenitude of authority should be abused, to the detriment of the public, the constitution has interposed a check, by the means of parliamentary impeachment, for the punishment of such ministers as, from criminal motives, advise or conclude any treaty which shall afterwards be judged to derogate from the honor and interest of the nation." How does this apply to this Constitution? The President and Senate have the same power of making treaties; and when made, they are to have the same force and validity. They are to be the supreme law of the land here.
No appeal can now be made as to fact in common-law suits. The unanimous verdict of twelve impartial men cannot be reversed. I shall take the liberty of reading to the committee the sentiments of the learned Judge Blackstone, so often quoted, on the subject.
National debt, one hundred and forty millions; ten millions, the peace establishment; twenty millions, the whole current cash of the nation. Blackstone. I never read anybody that better understood the subject. For the state of the revenue he calculates the taxes of Ireland and England; taxes of Britain, perpetual and annual; funds, three, the aggregate, general, and South Sea; taxes, upon every article of luxuries and necessaries. These funds are mortgaged, for the civil list, eight hundred thousand pounds, as well as the interest of the debt.
Mr. DICKINSON mentioned to the House, that, on examining Blackstone's Commentaries, he found that the term “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.
Mr. Hamilton. The course of my experience in human affairs might perhaps restrain me from saying much on this subject. I shall, however, give birth to some of the observations I have made during the course of this debate. The gentleman from Maryland has been at great pains to establish positions which are not denied. Many of them, as drawn from the best writers on government, are become almost self-evident principles. But I doubt the propriety of his application of those principles in the present discussion. He deduces from them the necessity that states entering into a confederacy must retain the equality of votes—this position cannot be correct—Facts plainly contradict it. The parliament of Great Britain asserted a supremacy over the whole empire, and the celebrated Judge Blackstone labors for the legality of it.
Mr. MADISON, instead of being alarmed, had no doubt but the Constitution would increase, rather than decrease, the security of territorial rights and commercial advantages, as it would augment the strength and respectability of the country. The honorable gentleman, says he, has said we are making great innovations in extending the force of treaties. Are not treaties the law of the land in England? I will refer you to a book which is in every man's hand—Blackstone's Commentaries. It will inform you that the treaties made by the king are to be the supreme law of the land.
Mr. GEORGE NICHOLAS again drew a parallel between the power of the king of Great Britain and that of Congress, with respect to making treaties. He contended that they were on the same foundation, and that every possible security which existed in the one instance was to be found in the other. To prove that there was no constitutional limit to the king's power of making treaties, and that treaties, when once by him made, were the supreme law of the land, he quoted the following lines in Blackstone's Commentaries, vol. i. page 257: “It is also the king's prerogative to make treaties, leagues, and alliances, with foreign states and princes; for it is, by the law of nations, essential to the goodness of a league, that it be made by the sovereign power; and then it is binding upon the whole community; and in England the sovereign power, quoad hoc, is vested in the person of the king. Whatever contracts, therefore, he engages in, no other power in the kingdom can legally delay, resist, or annul.” A further proof, says Mr. Nicholas, that there is no limitation in this respect, is afforded by what he adds: “And yet, lest this plenitude of authority should be abused, to the detriment of the public, the constitution has interposed a check, by the means of parliamentary impeachment, for the punishment of such ministers as, from criminal motives, advise or conclude any treaty which shall afterwards be judged to derogate from the honor and interest of the nation.” How does this apply to this Constitution? The President and Senate have the same power of making treaties; and when made, they are to have the same force and validity. They are to be the supreme law of the land here.
No appeal can now be made as to fact in common-law suits. The unanimous verdict of twelve impartial men cannot be reversed. I shall take the liberty of reading to the committee the sentiments of the learned Judge Blackstone, so often quoted, on the subject.
I am reminded of the Frog and the Scorpion, crossing the lake. The frog carries the scorpion with his promise not to sting. Halfway across the lake, the scorpion stings, dooming them both. The frog asks why, why would you do this? The scorpion says, I'm a scorpion, I cant help it.
Obama, dear friend, was born a Kenyan. He is only inheriting what is rightfully his, and expected from every other son on the planet. Loyalty to his Father and his Fathers country.
Why is he destroying the United States and bowing to dictators? He cant help help it, He's a Kenyan born citizen. An American does not bow to anyone. We are free people, born from the very blood spilled for freedom. He is not. He cant help himself. Oh, he will say all the right words to convince you Mr. Rogers, but in the end he will kill you given the moment of opportunity... he just can't help it.
In fact, yes he did, he ran as a Citizen of the world and collected cash from foreign countries. He campaigned in Germany. He campaigned in Kenyan elections while being a US senator.
My Daughter, a avowed Marxist, was very proud of the fact that he was a Kenyan citizen and as World citizen. She said it made him even more qualified.
So yes, he did garner support and votes as a dual citizen from members in my own family. I had discussion with my daughter about this very topic prior to the election.
I also have a brother who told me, flat out, he was voting for Obama because he was black. He could not come up with any other reason or qualification.
Please, I sould have said “Nature”:
The scorpion says, Its my nature, I cant help it.
Obama did NOT run as a Kenyan citizen. Nor could his father’s nationality MAKE him a British subject unless he consented to it as an adult. Nor has he shown ANY fondness for the UK.
I’m not defending Obama. I AM saying it is stupid to attack him thru the courts. The courts will never rule to remove Obama. They have no jurisdiction in the matter, nor is there a legal case worth their hearing. It is a waste that makes us all look STUPID.
Pretty cool for Mexico... lucky for them we don't have a provision providing for derivation of pure American citizenship at birth for our president. For pur loyalties to America. I wonder how the founders would have phrased that clause while looking to Vattel, Law of nations, for a simple definition? After Washington received the letter from John Jay?
I'm not attacking him. I am simply pointing out the Obvious. He was born a Kenyan citizen. That's an indisputable fact. His history of dual citizenship was a badge of honor in the Democrat party. They told me so.
Pursuing justice in a court is the preferred venue for a dispute of this magnitude.
The courts can deny the obvious at the cost of their reputation and respect.
So if his father's nationality could not make him a British subject unless he consented to it as an adult, how could his mother's citizenship make him an American Citizen unless he consented to it and immigrated and naturalized per US laws as and adult? She was not of age sufficient for Obie to derive citizenship from her.
I’m not defending Obama. I AM saying it is stupid to attack him thru the courts. The courts will never rule to remove Obama. They have no jurisdiction in the matter, nor is there a legal case worth their hearing. It is a waste that makes us all look STUPID.
Sorry to disagree with you, but we as Americans are entitled to have our laws clarified and for us to know exactly who is and who isn't eligible to be President. It like most questions are not STUPID. It is a question being asked around the world by millions of people. If the US Supreme Court won't answer it, maybe they and the rest of our government should be disbanded and we revert to the "law of the jungle"? Apparently that is what we are operating under right now anyway.
While they are at it they need to revisit the 14th amendment and Plyler v Doe which are ripe. As for looking STUPID please don't include me with your self description you are doing very well doing such right here.
“So if his father’s nationality could not make him a British subject unless he consented to it as an adult, how could his mother’s citizenship make him an American Citizen unless he consented to it and immigrated and naturalized per US laws as and adult?”
Are you nuts? Or just stupid... Obama’s citizenship is by birth, not by parentage.
Now, if you have evidence he was born in Kenya, go ahead and present it...but no one has offered any evidence.
“Sorry to disagree with you, but we as Americans are entitled to have our laws clarified and for us to know exactly who is and who isn’t eligible to be President.”
We had an election. There were TWO YEARS for someone to make the case that Obama was ineligible, and it didn’t float. It’s over. And the courts aren’t going to rule on what America has already decided.
Obama is ineligible for Kenyan citizenship.
You and I have a very different perspective from Obama. He grew up on an isolated Island, Indonesia, and a proud Son of Kenya. You and I grew up as Americans. He simply didn't.
I get a tear in my eye when the national anthem plays. Mr. Obama has nothing but contempt for our national anthem. He is not one of us. The constitution recognizes that simple fact of nature.
ROFLMAO your post is plain STUPID. You have blinders on and interpret things the way you want to see them. It is debatable and the subject of many questions as to where Obama was born. It is not written in stone. Tell me why won’t he show his long form BC and the rest of his records? Come on give me a logical reason why he won’t show it? He promised transparency, but is anything but transparent. As for the courts, they take their time and the question will get answered or we the people will answer it without them.
Can McCain be President? Jindal? As for jurisdiction of the Supreme Court I suggest you read the Constitution, drag your copy out of the trash or borrow one from one of your liberal friends who can’t read or who ignores it, it is still the law of the land.
Please be reminded that officials in the Kenyan government have publicly stated he was born there. His wife has publicly stated that Kenya is his home country. These are public declarations of fact from people who should know the facts.
These declaration still stand today, with neither Michelle Obama nor the Kenyan government retracting these statements.
The documents of His circumstance of birth in Hawaii are still not publicy available for viewing. I would expect them to remain that way if he was born in Kenya and someone “Phoned it in” to his Grandmother to document in Hawaii.
When viewing this set of facts, it is like looking at a Prostitute on a street corner. You see her loitering, skirt hiked up, waiving to men. You cant actually see her having sex for money, but you know exactly whats going on.
So a Mexican or Kenyan born here can become president and cede Arizona, New Mexico and California to Mexicans?
Pretty cool for Mexico... lucky for them we don’t have a provision providing for derivation of pure American citizenship at birth for our president. For pur loyalties to America. I wonder how the founders would have phrased that clause while looking to Vattel, Law of nations, for a simple definition? After Washington received the letter from John Jay?
If you want to get rid of Obama you can help to get a proscuting attorney to convene a Grand Jury, subpoena Obama’s records, get him indicted and either he will resign as did Nixon or he can be impeached, as was Clinton.
The Founders established the process to alter their work in framing the Constitution. The 14th Amendment, dealing with a different legal realities regarding citizenship than existed at the time of the founding altered the Framers’ work. Since 1868, the emphasis in determining citizenship in the United States has been on birth right
citizenship, “jus soli”. That principle has been upheld as constitutional in case after case.
The Founders never assumed that the positions that they took in 1788 would stand for all time on every issue, hence, the amendments and one of those amendments says that “all persons born...are citizens.” And the Supreme Court has affirmed that since the ratification of the 14th Amendment there are only two classes of American citizens: born citizens and naturalized citizens. Born citizens can become President, naturalized citizens cannot become president.
Those who don’t like what Obama is doing in the southwest can vote against him in 2012 and give him a congressional minority that will blunt his tactics this November.
If you read the Constitution, you would know who is responsible for removing a President, if needed. Perhaps YOU should pull a copy out of the trash, since YOU do not know what is in it.
” Please be reminded that officials in the Kenyan government have publicly stated he was born there. His wife has publicly stated that Kenya is his home country. These are public declarations of fact from people who should know the facts.”
Feel free to go to court with those ‘facts’. Like your other birther buddies, you’ll be tossed out of court.
Lunatics!
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.