Posted on 08/07/2024 11:02:50 AM PDT by CDR Kerchner
Thanks for the John Jay quote and associated citation.
Here’s one of the footnotes from that text:
7. Notation in margin: “Vat. 3 B. 7. Ch.” Emer de Vattel, The law of nations; or, Principles of the law of nature: applied to the conduct and affairs of nations and sovereigns. By M. de Vattel. A work tending to display the true interest of powers. Translated from the French (London: printed for J. Newbery, J. Richardson, S. Crowder, T. Caslon, T. Longman, B. Law, J. Fuller, J. Coote, and G. Kearsly, 1759), bk. 3, chap. 7, sec. 103, p. 36. Here and below JJ paraphrases or quotes with minor changes in punctuation or capitalization from this edition, his personal copy of which is now in the Columbia University Law Library.
This seems to show that, at least as of 1793, John Jay possessed a 1759 English translation of the original French of Vattel’s Law of Nations.
BTW, Emer de Vattel is cited up and down the length of the noted paper by Jay (an intellectual giant among U.S. founding fathers).
gaslight
In Inglis v. Trustees (1830) and Elk v. Wilkins (1884), the Supreme Court considered the status of children who are born in the United States, of fathers who owe allegiance to a sovereignty other than the United States. In both cases, the Court ruled that such children are not even citizens, let alone natural born citizens.
In Minor v. Happersett (1875), the Supreme Court defined two classes of persons. The first class consists of children born in the United States, of U.S.-citizen parents. The second class consists of all other U.S.-born children, regardless of their parents’ citizenship. The Court used the term “natural born citizen” only in reference to members of the first class. Regarding members of the second class, the Court doubted they were even citizens, let alone natural born citizens. In the Court’s opinion, natural born citizens are “distinguished from” aliens or foreigners, suggesting that a natural born citizen is someone who is not a “foreigner” (foreign citizen) at birth [05].
In Kwock Jan Fat v. White (1920), the Supreme Court referred to Mr. Kwock as a natural born citizen. He was born in the United States. At the time of his birth, his father was a native-born American citizen, and his mother was a U.S. citizen by marriage.
Check out the last sentence of the 12th Amendment.
The time to challenge her qualification to the presidency was four years ago.
Ya’ll are urinating into the wind.
Well this is true.
Modern courts are pretty incompetent, aren't they?
Did you see how they let Alec Baldwin go for some idiotic legal bullsh*t the other day?
"Nature" defines it. The courts can either acknowledge what the "natural law" definition of it is, or they can just get it wrong as they usually do.
This is pretty much the long and short of it.
And Jay is the initiator of the "natural born citizen" requirement.
Kamala was born from two foreigners, she is an anchor baby not a citizen.
Ya’ll are urinating into the wind.
We all know the courts will never deal with any mistakes until they are left with absolutely no choice.
And even then, they will try to do whatever makes them feel good at the time.
Modern courts are particularly incompetent.
Mark Levins standards are subject to his intent.
I don’t care what you call it. If you think all this blather about natural-born citizenship is going to get Kamala Harris or anyone else like her disqualified, you’re a fool. It’s just distracting from the issues and giving the mainstream media ammunition to ridicule Trump supporters as birthers. This sort of nonsense is helping her.
The Supreme Court would rule Kamala Harris natural-born. It might be supreme incompetence, but it would still be supreme law of the land.
Commander:
I’m 77. I remember my fourth grade teacher telling us an NBC means both parents are citizens. Apparently the left has disappeared history books stating that.
Glenn Beck used to have “Wall Builders” founder David Barton on as a guest, and he has said they have many old historical documents and books in their collection.
Their website https://wallbuilders.com/ state:
“America is Built
on a Firm
Foundation
Have you been looking for documented
truth about our nation’s history?
Do you support Christian ideals of
freedom in America?
Do you struggle knowing where to start
looking for answers?”
Have you talked with David Barton? I asked the question on his facebook page but didn’t get a reply.
Maybe someone with your gravitas can get him to look for old text books in his collection. teaching the two citizen parent requirement I was taught, in the 1950’s. Libs and FogBowers (I repeat myself) have denied this was ever taught, and it burns me up.
Thanks very much for your time.
This Guy is of the opinion that the J6 Constitutional process sanates any deficiencies that may exist in the soon-to-be-sworn-in POTUS and VPOTUS.
Such as non-NBC status.
Just so everyone is aware, what we are discussing in these threads is truth, not what men with guns will enforce.
It ought to be the same thing, but with modern incompetent courts, it isn't.
Yes, in the famous and very timely letter to GW.
“...any but...”
This language is only compatible with utter exclusivity in the status of NBC of the United States.
Levin’s 2013 loose interpretation of the term to include Cruz (birth outside the U.S. but to at least one U.S. citizen parent), and which logically would now include Harris (birth within the U.S. but to exactly zero U.S. citizen parents) can’t possibly match up with the exclusivity envisioned by Jay for the “Command in chief of the american army”.
Nothing will help her now.
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.