George Washington's estate returns library book 221 years after he borrowed it
The book Washington had held on to for so long?
To say Vattel was not known to the founders is utterly ridiculous.
Posted on 04/30/2011 12:49:21 AM PDT by djf
Let's just consider 0 on his accomplishments and demonstrated allegiances.
A narcissistic poseur who's laziness, bullying and willingness to buy support with money forcefully drawn from taxpayers through programs which are open to manipulation by himself and his minions has put our economy in the tank and our security in the toilet while he preens for the cameras, slurps ice cream and chases glitz like lottery-winning trash.
Who cares if he's the cast-off spawn of a goat-herding post-colonial global vagabond and an anti-establishment socialist looking for ways to rebel against daddy? Just considering 0 on his (lack of) merit is strong enough reason for him to be gone.
obumpa
Doug, WhiskeyX has a legitimate point. The Founders put “natural born citizen” and “citizen” in the same sentence so they clearly meant to differentiate between the two. Your point that the United States is no longer a patriarchy is incontestable, but irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is whether Obama is eligible for the Presidency under the Constitution as it currently stands.
You can make the point that the clause is obsolete and should be changed. Fine, the Constitution has an amendment process that can, and maybe even should, be used to do just that. However, until that happens, the Constitution as written remains the supreme law of the land.
We are in deep peril here. If any part of the Constitution can be considered a “dead letter”, the entire edifice becomes as shaky as a house of cards in a windstorm. If Obama’s “presidency” is illegitimate — and I believe it is — and yet is allowed to stand, we are definitely in the final days of the American Republic.
This is deadly serious.
There is no American thread in his fabric
The 9th and 10th amendments are "dead letters". Under contemporary commerce clause jurisprudence, there is precious little that the federal government cannot do because of the 9th and 10th amendments.
When did this happen? I have been participating in this debate for at least three years and I will tell you that it has not happened. I have seen attempts to do so - but I have never seen one that did so without willful intellectual dishonesty, selective citation, ignoring of historical material of the greatest relevance, elevation of nonsense and the application of utter illogic.
FATHER... please. We no longer live in a patriarchy. Women's rights abolished legal patriarchal responsibility.
This comment is truly ignorant. The word that Vattel uses is (in English) PARENTS. Sure, that includes fathers as a necessary subset, and in colonial America fathers were paramount. But the rules never was either parent. It was both. Even if the rule was fathers only, that that would still be true as we don't get to play fast and loose with the meanings and intentions of the Framers just because our sensibilities have changed over the years.
Do I think that Obama will be removed before the end of his term? Of course not. I am a realist. But just because the majority is lazy, cowardly, weak minded or disinterested does not mean that we have to play deaf dumb and blind to the plain meaning of the Constitution.
Excellent post; consider yourself highly commended.
The trolls like to cite Lynch v. Clarke
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/Lynch_v_Clarke_1844_ocr.pdf
But what's fun, is that they ignore certain quotes in it which blow them out of the water.
(p. 248) “The inconsistency of holding that Julia Lynch is a citizen here, when it is conceded on all hands that by reason of her parents being British subjects she is aIao a British subject; was strongly urged. The incon- sistency, however, IS nothing but the occurrence of a double allegiance, which ex- ists in the tens of thousands of our naturalized citizens, who were once subjects of the crown of Great Britain. We recognize its existence, because we adopt them as citizens, with full knowledge that by the law of their native country, they never can put off the allegiance which they owe to its government. “
Hmmm, there's that dual-allegiance idea, right in the trolls' own pet case.
(p. 249)
“In this state, naturalized citizens are eligible to every public office, except that of governor. In most of the states, laws have been enacted to give aliens all or most of the rights of citizens, in respect of ,the acquiring, holding and transmission of property; and I believe in all of the states, there are frequent instances of such laws for the benefit of particular aliens and classes of aliens; while in several of them, the disability to inherit lands is entirely done away.”
The Lynch case concerned property rights, not eligibility for the Presidency...and running for political office is a privilege, not a right. (One is not "eligible" for redress of petitions, or free speech.)
(p. 255)
“I do not find that the rule derived from the public law, is so clearly in favor of the complainant, as was contended by him. Mr. Justice Story, who is familiar with the Continental writers upon public law, says ‘that certain principles (relative to national domicil) have been generally recognized by tribunals administering the public law or the law of nations, as of unquestionable authority. First; Persons who are born in a country, are generally deemed to be citizens and subjects of that country. A reasonable qualification of the rule would seem to be, that it should not apply to the children of parents, who were in itinere in the country, or who were abiding there for temporary purposes, as for health, or curiosity, or occasional business. It would be difficult, however, to assert, that in the present state of public law, such a qualification is universally established.”
(Story’s "Conflict of Law” 47, § 48.)
Recall that Barack’s dad was an illegal alien, subject to deportation who went back to Kenya, after Harvard and the govt. forced him to leave.
Game, Set, Match.
(I'm losing all respect whatsoever for Harvard, by the way.)
But wait...there’s MORE:
(p. 257)
“In 4 Dane’s Abridgement, 701, ch. 131 ; art. 2, § 8, he says: ‘And now, if an American citizen goes abroad and marries an alien wife, and have a child by her in a foreign country, that child is not alien, but may inherit his estate in the United States. But if an American woman, a citizen, go abroad and marry an alien husband, and have a child by him so born, that child is an alien, and cannot inherit her estate in the United States. And upon the same principle, if an English subject comes into the United States, and marries an American wife, and has a child by her *born here, it cannot inherit her estate here, because this child follows the allegiance of its father, and may inherit his estate in England.”* Manifestly a non sequitur, because in the case first put, the child, if born in England of an American father, unquestionably owes allegiance in England, is a subject of that country, and may inherit there. Yet he is, as the author says, a citizen of the United States also. And by the same rule, the child born here of the English father, is a citizen here, and may inherit here as well as in England. In short, both are cases of that double allegiance, which is effected by the rule of the common law, and which Mr. Reeves says is not a novelty, nor peculiar to that law.
Slam DUNK! Trolls are TOAST. And so should be OBAAMA.
doug,
Go ***** a camel, troll-boy.
There's such a thing as following the Constitution.
And "dual allegiance" and all that was and remains a concern, as illustrated above.
You know, bowing to the Saudi king (Americans Do NOT bowTM); telling the Russians even the serial numbers of the Trident nuclear warheads sent to Great Britain; telling in public the exact number of active nuclear warheads in the US arsenal; and so many more that...just to save time, go read this, it summarizes it nicely:
Cheers!
Ronin,
You don't by any chance suppose that this is exactly what Soros / Ayers / Pelosi / Stalin had in mind when they shoe-horned the pig-f***er(+) into office, do you?
(+) This is a quote taken from an urban legend about LBJ, who pushed through the civil-rights legislation in conjunction with REPUBLICANS (and Rev. MLK Jr. was a Republican too) -- OVER the objections of Democrats. Anyone attempting to use the race card on this will have it confiscated and destroyed.
Cheers!
Cheers!
Well done.
The founders wrote Article 2 to apply to exactly 1 job in the world. POTUS. VP was added later.
None of the usually cited laws or verdicts were directed soley at that job. They all deal with the larger issue of citizenship. Many of them used very loose language of NBC. To then cite those laws/decisions to POTUS is a stretch indeed.
The courts have NEVER decided a case with sect 2 of the Constition as it’s fulcrum. In fact, the USSC has refused to take many such cases.
That being the case we are left to argue the case amonst ourselves.
The current argument is that any child born of one US Citizen parent on US soil is elegible to become POTUS. Accordingly, any Taliban Bin Laden could sneak into the US and impregnate any citizen and voila’ - POTUS elegible baby!Anybody really believe that’s what Thomas Jefferson intended?
The stupid/racist/radical/extremist/redneck view is that to fulfill the requirements of Sect 2 for the job of POTUS requires a baby that is born with allegiance to only the USA. No split loyalty. No Dual Citizenship. Only way for that to happen is to be born on US soil and both parents are US citizens. Pure American.
But as djf noted, de Vattel was Swiss. The Swiss did not and do not have jus soli; to be Swiss, you either have to naturalize or have Swiss parentage.
Who had jus soli at the time of the Founding? The United Kingdom. As Justice Gray wrote in Wong Kim Ark,
As you noticed, more important is that United Kingdom had a phrase similar to "natural-born citizen": "natural-born subject."
From Wong Kim Ark,
"Natural-born subject" appears no less than twenty-two times in the Opinion of the Court for United States v. Wong Kim Ark. We're not talking about a translation of four French words here; we're talking about a phrase in ENGLISH. You really think the founders, who until 1783 were considered natural-born subjects of the British Crown, would use "les naturels ou indigènes" to define "natural-born citizen" over an equivalent English phrase, "natural-born subject"? Or that they'd use de Vattel's definition over the English common law definition? If the Founders had wanted to use de Vattel's definition over the English common law definition, they would've made sure to emphasize that they picked a definition contrary to English common law. They did not.
It wasn't until 1983 that the United Kingdom revised its jus soli policy.
Some of you are dissatisfied with our current nationality law. Evidently, some of you would like a law closer to what the United Kingdom or Switzerland has (*). That's fine. If y'all want to press for a Constitutional amendment to change our jus soli policy, go for it.
But don't go around citing English translations of Swiss legalists (i.e. de Vattel) and argue that what they had in mind is what the Founders had in mind. And don't forget that Justice Antonin Scalia has publicly expressed his disdain for "international law": "...I do not use foreign law in the interpretation of the United States Constitution."
Justice Scalia’s Aunt was my French teacher.
The US is not the UK. Justice Scalia used to play poker with a late buddy of mine.
George Washington's estate returns library book 221 years after he borrowed it
The book Washington had held on to for so long?
To say Vattel was not known to the founders is utterly ridiculous.
Who was Justice Gray? "On 1881, President Chester A. Arthur nominated Gray to a vacancy on the Supreme Court of the United States; he was confirmed the following day[.]"
Who was President Chester A. Arthur? Chester Arthur was a British subject at the time of his birth in Vermont, because his father was had not yet a US Citizen.
Arthur was not an elected President. He became President when a fanatic supporter of Mr. Arthur assassinated the then-President James A. Garfield.
Why would a fanatic supporter of Mr. Arthur kill President Garfield? Because the killer, Charles J. Guiteau, wanted a job under the Spoils system, which he knew--as did all of America at the time--a system of which Mr. Arthur was close to the top. Mr. Arthur was, well, corrupt. A corrupt official.
Arthur was the chief underling of political boss Roscoe Conkling. Arthur had gained the most politically enriching position of his era when he was appointed by President Ulysses S. Grant to be Collector of the Port of New York in 1871.
Arthur held that powerful position until he was booted from it by President Rutherford B. Hayes in 1878, in a wave of political reform. The Republican Party supporter of the Spoils system were known as the "Stalwarts" and they remained very influential and powerful. Consequently the candidate Garfield negotiated with them for support by granting them the VP slot. Arthur took it, and Garfield-Arthur won the election.
Garfield disliked Arthur, and refused to let Arthur into his house.
This man, Arthur, was the man who appointed Judge Gray.
He had 2 chances to bring up Obama Sr not counting all of the court cases that have been dismissed without comment. Just curious, when was the last time a Supreme Court overturned an action by a sitting Chief Justice? Seems like something that doesn't happen everyday...
Yup!
I stumbled across that doing my readings.
He had two copies, one borrowed from the library and another that I believe is still on his estate.
Do YOU have any idea at all whether Justice Roberts considered the Natural Born Citizenship status of Obama at all, before the swearing in, or before the re-swearing in? And if you do have any idea, what is the basis of that idea?
I’ve always thought there was something really, really funny about that business.
Zero flubbed the oath in public.
Then, we are told that it was later administered to him in private.
Kinda makes you go “Hmmmmmmm.....??? WTF???”
de Vattel wrote in French, not English. Accordingly, he did not say anything about "natural-born citizens"; that's an English translation of "les naturels ou indigènes" and moreover, not every English translation associates that with "natural-born citizens." djf himself pointed to Fenwick's translation, which does not use the phrase "natural-born citizens."
So what quite a few of y'all are trying to say is that the Founders chose de Vattel's definition of "natural-born citizen," even though
I don't dispute that you have correctly understood what de Vattel's words meant. But remember that original meaning seeks to answer the question, "What would a reasonable person living at the time of ratification have understood these words to mean?" de Vattel wrote in French, and he did not use the phrase "natural-born citizen." The English wrote in English (duh), and their longstanding definition of "natural-born subject" was quite different from de Vattel's. You think a reasonable person in 1787 would've chosen de Vattel's definition over the English common law one when prior to 1783, he was a "natural-born subject" of the British Crown?
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.