Dr. Orly's YouTube Channel
Posted on 01/01/2009 3:39:54 PM PST by Jack Black
lol Jefferson certainly clears up how the founders would’ve dealt with the blackstone issue.
Our U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) held that women, while being citizens of the U.S., do not have the right to vote under the Constitution. Of course, we know that this law was later repudiated. In discussing who are citizens of the United States and whether women may be such citizens, the Court explains that we did not need the Fourteenth Amendment to create U.S. citizens. It explains that before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Constitution itself did not prescribe what a citizen was. While the Court does not cite The Law of Nations, the Court goes into concepts which can be found in that treatise. The concepts of "nation," "political community," "association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare," and "member of the nation formed by the association" are all concepts that are found in E. de Vattel’s, The Law of Nations (1758). The Court then says that each person so associated with the community was a member of that community and owed that community his allegiance. The Court says that citizens were then those persons who "associated themselves together to form the nation" and who were later admitted as members of that nation. The Court then explains that an individual's wanting to ban together with others to form the new nation was actually that person's allegiance to the new nation. The Court continues that it was the individual's giving of this allegiance to the cause of creating the new nation that made that individual a citizen of that nation. The Court explains that for his allegiance, the person received the protection of the nation (calling these reciprocal obligations). Finally, the Court comments that any person who participated and helped in politically separating the new nation from Great Britain and in the military cause against that nation became a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted. The Court explains that anyone who was part of these people at the time of the drafting of the Constitution were the "original citizens" of the U.S.
The Court then says that citizenship would not be limited to only this original category, for the Constitution at Article II provided for allowing more citizens to be created by birth and in the clause giving Congress the power to establish uniform rules of naturalization by naturalization. The Court then tells us that the Constitution does not define what a "natural born Citizen" is. The Court then said the following in explaining what a "natural born Citizen" is:
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens." Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.
This test was affirmed in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898).
Article II of the Constitution provides that "[n]o person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . ." From the Minor decision, we learn who the Framers placed in the second category as being eligible to be President. These were the "original citizens," those who were members of and who gave their allegiance to the revolutionary cause that produced the new nation. The Framers grandfathered these individuals to be eligible to be President. There cannot be any doubt that even children who were born on U.S. soil fell into this category simply because they were the first generation of citizens. It is interesting to note that Jane Randolph Jefferson (1720-1776), President Thomas Jefferson’s mother, was born in the Tower Hamlets of Shadwell, a maritime neighborhood of London, England, and came to Virginia when she was young. With the passing of time, no one would be able to benefit from the grandfather clause and then would have to be "natural born Citizens" to be eligible to be President. We learn that "all children born in the country of parents who were its citizens. . . " make up the “natural born Citizen” category. The Court says that there have never been any doubts as to the status of these children. As to children born in the U.S. to parents who were not U.S. citizens at the time of their birth, there have been doubts. In other words, "natural born Citizen" under this formulation requires two generations of U.S. citizens, one generation in the parents and the other in the child himself/herself who also must be born on U.S. soil. It is important to understand that we are focusing on what is a "natural born Citizen" under Article II which specifies the requirements to be President and not on what a "Citizen" is under the 14th Amendment or under some Congressional Act which does not relate to Article II natural born Citizenship.
Obama, while having his mother's U.S. citizenship generation, is missing that of his father's, for his father was a British subject/citizen at the time of his birth. He therefore cannot be a "natural born Citizen," even if he was born in Hawaii.
(c) Mario Apuzzo, Esq. January 2, 2009
Can you ping the list with emphasis on post 12 and 42.
This is well done. You must have stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night.
The bottom-line is that this Usurper Elect has always known that he is Constitutionally unqualified to run for President and has chosen to ignore this requirement.
Having sole uncompromised allegiance to the United States of America is the primary qualifier of all the requirements.
Our First President, spoke quite strongly about the affects of foreign alliances and other dangers that our nation would face.
We are facing these dangers, directly right now with the election of a BOGUS-POTUS:
From George Washington’s Farewell Address:
All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency.
Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts.
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.
So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification.
It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils 7 Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it.
Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other.
Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.
...........................................................................................................................................
If we let this usuptation of power progess to conclusion, we owe George Washington, our Founding Fathers, and all who have shed blood to preserve this great nation, one hell of an apology.
We will have just surrendered this nation to foreign interest both directly and indirectly.
Directly because we know he is not a natural born citizen by his own declaration of parentage.
And indirectly by the public disclosure of:
1. His alliance to Kenya by campaigning for a political candidate.
2. His alliance to Kenya by raising $1,00,000 in campaign monies for Odinga, a Kenyan.
3. His acceptance of 200 million dollars from undocumented foreign campaign money.
4. His world campaign tour whereby he referred to himself as “a citizen of the world.”
What more could he possibly do to demonstrate that his sole interest and alliance is NOT with the United States of America?
Call him what you will: Usurper, Bogus-Potus, Unqualified, or Ineligible.
You said — “As he didn’t win we never had to argue about it too much.”
If McCain were to be an alternative in case the other “ticket” can’t serve (as he was one of the candidates actually running) — then what is not an issue becomes an issue...
So, it would appear that McCain needs to be investigated as thoroughly as Obama, just in case McCain is the only other alternative.
You said — “What would happen if Obama gets sworn in, and a year later there is proof beyond a doubt that he is constitutionally ineligible to be POTUS?”
It’s kinda hard to think that there would be proof “beyond a doubt” — because that kind of proof would have to be certified in a court of law. Otherwise, it’s simply “some document” and “some people’s word” about it. With a court of law certifying that something is true (i.e., this supposed “proof beyond a doubt) — then it could be said to be so.
However, I see that courts would defer to Congress in *even* taking such a case in terms of a sitting President’s qualifications for office — because, according to the Constitution, only Congress (through Impeachment and Trial) can remove a sitting President. Thus, a “remedy” sought by a court — by which one would bring this “proof” to — could not be done by the court.
And Congress does have the authority to investigate and appoint a Special Prosecutor to see if a crime has been committed — by a sitting President. We’ve already got the examples of that in our recent history.
Thus, it’s Congress’ responsibility to *prove* and to *remove* from office...
[But, I don’t hold out hope for Congress to do it, considering what happened with Clinton...]
Great work Jack.... I found these documents... maybe there is something here that will help....
http://www.rense.com/general84/obss.htm
These are documents obtained through the FOIA.
Where are the freepers today.... New Years was two days ago. Everyone should be up and at’um...
Have you researched the previous Presidents? It seems very possible that at least one had a parent who was not an American at birth (or an Original Citizen).
Which 18th century book, Blackstone or the French guy's?? But really It's both, in that the English version, having both parents be subjects as one criteria, as did the French. The English just added in place of birth as second alternate criteria, so that children of foreigners born in the realm were also "Natural born" subjects. (Both versions also went with the father's nationality if their was a split).
In Obama's case I suspect it won't matter. If he was born outside the US, He doesn't meet either criteria, nor the statutory criteria for being citizen at birth (whether or not that makes one natural born). What else would justify not revealing the actual long form BC, or even having a certified paper copy of the short form sent to one of the courts involved,
I did provide a link to Blackstone. One would need to look at the minutes of the Convention to see if either the English Common law or the "Law of Nations" was mentioned during the various changes that section of the Constitution underwent before assuming it's final form.
LOL!
>>>Have you researched the previous Presidents? It seems very possible that at least one had a parent who was not an American at birth (or an Original Citizen).
I don’t understand what this means. If there was or wasn’t a President that was ineligible, are you suggesting that makes Obama eligible? I’ve never voted for a President that was ineligible. Have you?
(1) Vattel was born in Switzerland, was a counselor (ambassador) for the Kingdom of Saxony, and wrote “Le Droit des Gens” (The Law of Nations) in the French language.
(2) The work was translated into English, published in London in 1759 and went through numerous editions, including American editions of 1796, 1833 and 1852, the 1883 reprint of the 1852 edition being available on the internet. Vattel’s book was the most influential work on international and constitutional law in the period 1758-1900.
(3) Ben Franklin wrote to Dutch diplomat Charles Dumas in 1775, “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, (after depositing one in our public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.”
(4) John Adams thought so highly of Vattel that he considered him a father-figure, writing in his diary for February 1, 1763 after wasting his time, “I employed however, too little of my Time in Reading and in Thinking. I might have spent much more. The Idea of M. de Vattell indeed, [illegible] scowling and frowning, haunted me.”
(5) James Madison, in his instructions to John Jay in Madrid on October 17, 1780, quoted Vattel concerning American rights to sail on the Mississippi, “An innocent passage (says Vattel) is due to all nations with whom a State is at peace.”
(6) Delegates to the Continental Congresses met at Carpenters Hall, which was the building that also housed the Library Company of Philadelphia. The librarian reported that Vattel was the primary source read by the delegates during the First Continental Congress. The Founding Fathers were so familiar with the works of Vattel that nobody felt the need to define natural-born citizen, since Vattel had already done so.
(7) The phrase “the law of nations” appears in Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution, “To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations.”
bump
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.