If Obama's father was a Kenyan then how could Hussein be eligible to be POTUS?

8/26/2009 | Kellynla

[kellynla]

If Obama's father was a Kenyan then how could Hussein be eligible to be POTUS?

[sugaree]

Yes, take things in context. So let’s understand that Vattel’s work was primarily concerned with established European lands such as Switzerland, nations with long-established populations and cultures living in close proximity to other nations with long-established populations and cultures. He wasn’t necessarily envisioning overseas colonies whose population was almost entirely fueled by immigration becoming nations of their own.

[Non-Sequitur]

They can't and they couldn't because BOTH of his parents were not U S citizens and therefore he can't be a natural born citizen, according to the Senate's own definition of the term.

Nonsense.

[Plummz]

They were both citizens at the time of the Constitution.

Barry doesn’t qualify for that clause unless he is 220 years old.

I don’t think he’s that old — but then again, I haven’t seen his birth certificate.

[GizmosAndGadgets]

Yes, take things in context. So let’s understand that Vattel’s work was primarily concerned with established European lands such as Switzerland, nations with long-established populations and cultures living in close proximity to other nations with long-established populations and cultures. He wasn’t necessarily envisioning overseas colonies whose population was almost entirely fueled by immigration becoming nations of their own.

Ok. Here's all the context you need:

CHAP. XIX.
OF OUR NATIVE COUNTRY, AND SEVERAL THINGS THAT RELATE TO IT.
§ 212. 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.

Vattel's work was written smack in the middle of the colonization efforts by the European nations, so it's hard to imagine that the effect of the laws of nations, in relation to colonization, was lost on Vattel. Immigration was addressed by the our own Constitution, with that pesky "Natural Born Citizen" clause. Everyone is welcome, but only citizens born to citizens can be President, with an exception made for those who were only "regular" citizens at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.

[GizmosAndGadgets]

Re. John McCain's NBC status.

This is only indirectly related to your conversation about SR511, but I thought you might find it interesting. While I was reading Vattel's "Laws Of Nations" for another discussion, I noticed this paragraph:

§ 217. Children born in the armies of the state.
For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.

This is, of course, only meaningful if you accept the notion that Vattel's work was influential on our Consitution (Ben Franklin certainly thought so); Vattel makes it clear that the accepted practice among countries at the time would grant McCain citizenship equal to having been born inside the country.

It's really a loophole for NBC status, since Vattel was clear in Book I, Chapter XIX, § 212. Citizens and natives that a NBC is born to two citizens, in the country. However, according to Vattel, John McCain is qualified to be President; Barack Obama is not.

[Technical Editor]

What's interesting is what Vattel himself says in section 214 (http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm):

§ 214. Naturalization.(58)

A nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society. This is called naturalization. There are some states in which the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, — for example, that of holding public offices — and where, consequently, he has the power of granting only an imperfect naturalization. It is here a regulation of the fundamental law, which limits the power of the prince. In other states, as in England and Poland, the prince cannot naturalize a single person, without the concurrence of the nation, represented by its deputies. Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.

Note that the bold sentence refers to England, whose laws on citizenship were used in the colonies. Thus, Vattel is clearly admitting the English practice as entirely valid and is no way insisting that the new United States of America was obligated to adopt any other manner of declaring who was a citizen at birth than that already in use.

[Plummz]

Vattel is not “admitting” anything; he’s simply explaining what it means to be naturalized at birth, as Barry apparently was. As a naturalized citizen, he is not eligible to serve as President. Hope this helps.

[GizmosAndGadgets]

Thus, Vattel is clearly admitting the English practice as entirely valid and is no way insisting that the new United States of America was obligated to adopt any other manner of declaring who was a citizen at birth than that already in use.

Sure, naturalized at birth is a possibility, though it does not equal natural born. We might as well throw in the next section, too:

§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country. It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say "of itself," for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.

So, applying §214 to Obama, he could be naturalized by the U.S. However, according to §215, British law would also make a claim on Obama Jr. as a child of a citizen born in a foreign country, of which Vattel says "their regulations must be followed". If both the U.S and Great Britain are applying the same law, then the Obama could have naturalized at birth, but he was still, legally, a British subject.

Sounds like a turf war; I say we concede this round and let the Queen keep him ;-)

[thecodont]

Thanks for the clarification and context.

[Technical Editor]

He was a dual citizen. That doesn’t make him any less a natural born U.S. citizen.

[Plummz]

It makes him not a natural born citizen.

[GizmosAndGadgets]

He was a dual citizen. That doesn’t make him any less a natural born U.S. citizen.

Laws of Nations makes no allowance for this circumstance. A NBC is born to two citizens (§ 212); a naturalized-at-birth-by-virtue-of-geography citizen (§ 214) might not have either parent as a citizen, which disqualifies the NBC status.

[Technical Editor]

Laws of Nations makes no allowance for this circumstance. A NBC is born to two citizens (§ 212); a naturalized-at-birth-by-virtue-of-geography citizen (§ 214) might not have either parent as a citizen, which disqualifies the NBC status.

What The Law of Nations, Vattel's treatise, has no power to say a single word -- much less "make allowance" for -- about anything in the U.S. Constitution.

The Constitution makes reference to the Law of Nations as a general concept, and capitalizing it was the style of writing of the day, where many nouns were capitalized.

Take your silly theory to any law school professor (take it to 100 of them if you want -- go ahead, prove me and the rest of the sane world wrong) and you will be enlightened. Clearly, you need to be dealing with someone you choose yourself as an authority. But it must be a law professor of a reputable university. You are the equivalent of the person who believes the world is flat. Settle the question for yourself. I'm done.

[Technical Editor]

Put another way: Vattel was esteemed for his work on international law. His direct influence on the Constitution and its content, specifically, on citizenship issues, is zero. The U.S. Constitution is dependent on not one word in Vattel’s treatise.

You who cling to this crazy idea are following the schizophrenic ravings of a madman who impresses you with his writing but has a defective mind. You follow Leo the way obot follow Obama. You are both suckers.

[Plummz]

Vattel’s book was the standard reference for the Law of Nations (there was no such thing as “international law”). It is the Law of Nations that governed citizenship matters, particularly regarding dual citizenship, and was a direct influence on the Framers as they built a new nation according to the laws of nature. Vattel’s book, as a standard reference, tells us what those standard Laws of Nations were.

This wasn’t a matter of dispute among learned literate people of the time. Your opinions as an unlearned, aliterate person of another time are simply the schizophrenic ravings as a madman.

Hope this helps.

[GizmosAndGadgets]

Vattel was esteemed for his work on international law. His direct influence on the Constitution and its content, specifically, on citizenship issues, is zero. The U.S. Constitution is dependent on not one word in Vattel’s treatise.

We already have evidence that Laws of Nations was influential in the founding of our nation. It is entirely reasonable to conclude that the definition of NBC comes from a source that was relied upon by the framers unless, of course, you have evidence of some other source for the "Natural Born Citizen" clause? Where do you get your definition from?

[bvw]

Vattel

Emmerich de Vattel was the most popular of all writers on the law of nations in America before, but especially after, the American Revolution. Vattel's {The Law of Nations} arrived, shortly after its publication, in an America, which had already been greatly influenced by Leibniz. No later than 1770, it was used as a textbook in colleges. It was often quoted in speeches before judicial tribunals and legislatures, and used in formulating policy. Following the Revolution, Vattel's influence grew. Vattel was cited far more often than Grotius and Puffendorf, in court proceedings, from 1789 to 1820.

Among those citing Vattel in legal cases and government documents, were Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, James Wilson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, and John Marshall. John Adams, the future delegate to the Continental Congress, second President of the U.S., and father of President John Quincy Adams, recorded in his Diary on Feb. 1, 1763, that after spending the day frivolously, instead of reading and thinking, ``The Idea of M. de Vattel indeed, scowling and frowning, haunted me.'' In 1765, Adams copied into his Diary three statements by Vattel, ``of great use to Judges,'' that laws should be interpreted according to the intent of the author, and every interpretation which leads to absurdity should be rejected. In a letter to the Foreign Minister of Denmark, in 1779, Benjamin Franklin quoted Vattel, and ``his excellent Treatise entitled {Le Droit des Gens.}'' James Madison, as a member of the Continental Congress in 1780, drafted the instructions sent to John Jay, for negotiating a treaty with Spain, which quotes at length from {The Law of Nations.} Jay complained that this letter, which was probably read by the Spanish government, was not in code, and ``Vattel's {Law of Nations,} which I found quoted in a letter from Congress, is prohibited here.'' Later, John Marshall, during his thirty-four years as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, quoted Vattel by far the most among all authors on the law of nations.

The Law of Nations and The Declaration of Independence

Delegates to the First and Second Continental Congress, which produced the Declaration of Independence, often consulted {The Law of Nations,} as a reference for their discussions. One important reason why the delegates chose to meet in Carpenters Hall, was that the building also housed the Library Company of Philadelphia. The librarian reported that Vattel was one of the main sources consulted by the delegates during the First Continental Congress, which met from Sept. 5 to Oct. 26, 1774. Charles W.F. Dumas, an ardent supporter of the American cause, printed an edition of {The Law of Nations} in 1774, with his own notes illustrating how the book applied to the American situation. In 1770, Dumas had met Franklin in Holland, and was one of Franklin's key collaborators in his European diplomacy. He sent three copies to Franklin, instructing him to send one to Harvard University, and to put one in the Philadelphia library. Franklin sent Dumas a letter, Dec. 9, 1775, thanking him for the gift. Franklin stated, ``I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept, has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting ...|.''

The study of {The Law of Nations} by the delegates to the Continental Congress, to answer questions ``of the circumstances of a rising state,'' is reflected in the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776. The central ideas of that document are coherent with Vattel's arguments on the criteria of a people to overthrow a tyrannical sovereign. The Declaration of Independence states that governments are instituted to fulfill the ``inalienable rights'' of ``life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,'' and can be changed if they fail to meet these obligations to the people. Governments should not be changed for light and transient causes, but only after a long chain of abuses to the fundamental rights of the people, with repeated requests for redress of grievances, which were refused. Repeated appeals were made to our ``British Brethren,'' but since they ``have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity,'' we are prepared to face them either in war or in peace. Therefore, we declare ourselves independent of the British Crown, with the full powers of a sovereign government, ``to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which Independent States may of right do.''

The inclusion of the central conception of {The Law of Nations,} Vattel's Leibnizian concept of happiness, as one of the three inalienable rights, is a crucial statement of the Declaration's Leibnizian character. The Declaration of Independence was prepared by a committee consisting of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Robert Livingston, and Roger Sherman. Jefferson was assigned by this committee to write the draft of the Declaration, after John Adams turned down the task, because of his numerous other responsibilities. The fact, that Jefferson was a strong proponent of the philosophy of John Locke by as early as 1771, is often used as evidence that the Declaration was based on Locke's philosophy. However, Locke had argued, in his {Two Treatises of Government,} that the fundamental right of men is to ``Life, Liberty, and Property.'' The inclusion of ``the pursuit of happiness,'' rather than ``property,'' as an inalienable right, was a crucial statement, that the American Revolution would be a battle for the establishment of a true Republic, rather than merely a dispute between two groups of aristocrats over the division of property.

Source "East West Dialogue" blog: Declaration of Independence

See also "Selected Writings of James Madison" "Selected Writings of James Madison" Google Books. Madison makes references to Vattel's direct influence upon the new nation of America's philosophy in foreign affairs.

[GizmosAndGadgets]

Clearly, you need to be dealing with someone you choose yourself as an authority.

Just in case you missed my point in #336, the "authority" I referenced was Mr. Benjamin Franklin, in his letter of 1775 to Mr. Charles Dumas, thanking him for the three copies of Vattel's work. It's a little difficult to speak with Ben right now. Fortunately for us, he left many of his thoughts in writing so that we could review them hundreds of years later.

I agree that the "Laws of Nations" as capitalized in the Constitution is insufficient evidence of Vattel's influence (every noun seems to be capitalized), but Franklin's own words support it's importance.

[GizmosAndGadgets]

In 1765, Adams copied into his Diary three statements by Vattel, ``of great use to Judges,'' that laws should be interpreted according to the intent of the author, and every interpretation which leads to absurdity should be rejected.

I particularly like that line about an interpretation "which leads to absurdity". The idea that our Founding Fathers left their new country open to a president with foreign allegiances is absurd.

Thanks for the detailed information!

[Technical Editor]

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/17th.asp