Posted on 04/30/2011 12:49:21 AM PDT by djf
Does anyone with authority to do anything about it care - no.
Yes, guilt by association is a truth, a concept proven by ALL of human history.
Thanks!
Reading some of the references there.
Man I wish those dudes had gotten their F’s and S’s straight.
Wazzup with the f/s business? I never figured that out...
You’ve missed the real history around the term natural born citizen. And Vattel was writing about international law, and admits it doesn’t apply to how England handled things.
I suggest reading this 1844 decision on what was meant by NBC:
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/Lynch_v_Clarke_1844_ocr.pdf
“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut (1795)
“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”
James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)
“Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign….That the father and mother of the demandant were British born subjects is admitted. If he was born before 4 July, 1776, it is as clear that he was born a British subject. If he was born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September, 1776 [the date the British occupied New York], he was born an American citizen, whether his parents were at the time of his birth British subjects or American citizens. Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.”
Justice Story, concurring opinion,Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155,164. (1830)
“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.”
Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”
William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States (1829)
6. Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.
Lynch v Clarke, 1844
US law has never followed Vattel on citizenship, nor would Vattel have expected it to. Vattel wrote on international law, and made the point that what he was writing didn’t hold true in 1758 England.
Scroll to page 254 click it...begin reading at Kin to end of page you will see natural,native.
Do not let our Mr Rogers discourage you. His agenda is distorting Vattel and the meaning of natural born citizen.
I’m not discouraged.
I have to admit a great deal of amusement about something, though.
The constant references to the English policies regarding natural born subjects. And yes, I have Blackstone and have read the references but not like in the last month or so.
They did it this way in England.... They did it this way in England... They did it this way in England...
Yawn...
They did alot of things in England. Thing is, we didn’t agree with them. That’s why we had that Revolution thingy!
;-)
Natural born citizen had a meaning prior to being written into the Constitution. It is not a term pulled out of thin air. At Independence, every natural born subject of the English colonies, now in the independent US, became a natural born citizen, and the various states started recognizing that by changing the wording of their laws and by legal decisions.
Vattel WAS used heavily by the Founders - for international law. Not for citizenship inside the US, and not for the meaning of natural born citizen.
The quotes I provided weren’t from Obamabots. They came from legal cases and legal commentators in the early 1800s.
We did not rebel against England over a dispute concerning citizenship. The American Revolution wasn’t about adopting citizenship by parentage!
The question is, "What would a reasonable person living at the time of ratification have understood these words to mean?" The Constitution, with the phrase "natural-born citizen," was ratified in 1788. de Vattel never used the English phrase "natural-born citizen," for he wrote in French, and not everyone translated "les naturels ou indigènes" as "natural-born citizen."
But the British had long defined the phrase "natural-born subject," and a reasonable person living at the time of ratification was a "natural-born subject" of the British Crown until 1783. He would've used the English common law definition of "natural-born subject" applied to "natural-born citizen," not one way of translating a Swiss legalist's writing that doesn't even contain the phrase "natural-born citizen."
Now you are just being silly. Nobody said such a thing.
If we're conservatives, then we can't pick and choose a definition that we like. We have to answer the question, "What would a reasonable person living at the time of ratification have understood these words to mean?"
You really want to argue that a reasonable person in 1788 would've used de Vattel's definition of "les naturels ou indigènes" over the English common law definition of "natural-born subject" when defining "natural-born citizen"?
“The English wrote in English (duh)”, “So well did Madison(father of the Constitution) master the universal language[Latin]of learning that forty years later he wrote long footnotes correcting the English translation of Latin works by the international law authorities ...Grotius, Pufendorf and Vattel.” “Madison” by Ketcham
It does not need to contain the exact phrase.
He used the word “naturels”.
Les NATURELS, ou INDIGENES, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de Parens Citoyens.
From my rusty memories of French.
Les naturels, ou indigenes, (The naturals or natives) sont ceux qui sont nes (are those who are BORN!!!! GET IT??? BORN!!! NOT HATCHED!!!!) dans le pays, (in the country) de Parens Citoyens (of parents who are citizens).
So.
The naturals or natives are those who are born in the country of citizen parents.
(Naturals) who are (born) who are (citizens) because of their parents citizenship.
You can try all you want but you cannot change what he said.
And you cannot change this. Vattel has either been directly cited or used as a reference in 149 Supreme Court cases.
(that list only includes the USSC decisions from 1 Dallas 1 up to 2005, I need to download the most recent US reports)
The Constituton does provide for the impeachment of members of the SCOTUS. It also provides for the impeachment of Senators, members of the House of Representatives, and other members of the Fedeearl Government. The Constitution also provides for the People to elect officials who are capable of conducting impeachments and Grand Jury hearings. As a grandmother was oft heard to say, can’t never did.
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.