Posted on 10/15/2009 2:13:26 PM PDT by Danae
This is my own work, I own any associated copyrights to it.
... What is a Natural Born Citizen? ...
“§ 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. -Emer Vattel (English language version, “Law of Nations” (1797) Book I, c.19, § 212 http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel.htm http://home.earthlink.net/~dybel/Documents/LawOfNations,Vattel.htm#I-%C2%A7212
Who is Emer Vattel? He wrote the book "Law of Nations" which was originally published in France in 1758. ...
************** There is a great deal more in the article at the link.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
Why would I want to put ice as that? As far as I can tell, my definition of NBC is currently the law of the land while your made-up birther definition has gotten nowhere.
Check out the link.
Wrong, your commentary is not the law of the land. Re-read the article.
I will when I get home. I am only iPhone ATM ... Lol
Only if you accept the definition which you have offered here which is not encapsulated in US Law anywhere. Few people would agree with it, especially at this point in the election cycle.
If that’s the best we got I say we drop it and move on to something else.
It would make sense to get our Congress people to define NB in the law, and provide for the FEC or state Sec. of State’s to verify eligibility.
You are not going to get any court to make up case law based around an obscure 18th century legal dictionary that has the effect of removing an elected President.
Maybe you need a new hobby?
Because, Pinhead, it was adopted as the Supreme Law of these United States, something you can't say about your French Law dictionary. The Rights of Man by Thomas Paine was widely circulated and presumably read by most of the founders. It is not a part of our legal system and can not be sighted as such, much less be the basis for tossing a President out of office, either.
In other words there is a BIG difference between possible sources of Constitutional Thought and the Document itself. Even The Federalist Papers are not law, just old writings. You get the difference, right?
Sorry .. I meant single issue case.
Sorry, but your post sort of sounded like you were just waking up to this fact one that dozens of us have been writing about and yelling about for a year or more.
“Why do the faction of birthers who challenge Obama on being a natural born citizen care about the birth certificate when no one denies Obama’s father was not an American citizen?”
There are those in the ‘Birther’ community that hold fast to the belief that he was not born in Hawaii but was instead born in a foreign land such as Indonesia, Kenya, Canada or possibly Seattle. The “long form” birth certificate is said to hold the key to this mystery.
Last summer/fall the argument was that BHO had no American BC at all. This is at least one reason why the first statement from Hawaii was “Yes, we do have a BC on file”. IIRC, this was also the initial onus for BHO showing his BC to certain people friendly to him (factcheck, etc.) .
Then the argument became that BHO may have a BC on file, but it did not list the birthplace as being Hawaii. As I understand, it is a demonstrable fact that the State of Hawaii will issue a COLB for someone born overseas and list the place of birth as being their foreign place of birth. So the BC shown by the BHO camp was declared a clear and incontrovertible forgery by those convinced BHO was born overseas. Several individuals , among them a fellow going by the moniker ‘Polarik’, wrote pages of ramblings about how he determined it was a forgery based on JPG files of the image.
A parallel meme began around this time that it was a simple matter to get Hawaiian BC in 1961 no matter where in the world a person was born. After all, someone did it in 1904. How much harder could it have been in 1961? That no examples of this having happened after 1960 is apparently besides the point.
Anyhow, with every other approach meeting with either a dead end or a sheer cliff, it has been declared that only by examining the “Long Form” the ‘Birthers’ would be able to demonstrate foreign birth by some manner that has yet to be disclosed. Some believe that there is a cover-up and the long form contains a note like “Phoned in by Grandma Dunham in late November” or that BHO’s father was actually Malcolm X. Others believe there is a cover-up and the long form was amended without leaving any kind of legal paper trail. Others still argue that there is a cover-up and that Hawaiian state officials have perjured themselves in official documents while Kenyan politicians clearly are not mistaken or simply lying to play to the crowd.
In short, there are numerous reasons. Some moderately sane. Most a little dodgy. A few quite certifiable.
In the end, it doesn’t really matter.
For those who have already decided that he is hiding something, no amount of document release will satisfy them unless it contains something clearly incriminating BHO with what they wish for him to be incriminated by.
That rather begs the question as to why they think they’ll actually get documents released if there is such incriminating information on them. But I digress....
If you have a better one, please, everyone would welcome the new information.
And, Please remember that the Constitution was written over 220 years ago, so don't give me any 20th century citations - the Framers wouldn't have used them
LoriC will be here don’t worry.
SHe is not using his law degree anyway.
She is reporting to us from the beach. Looks like she uses SPF 70 though.
oMG! You are too much. Lol!
Ghost Rider, The pattern is full.
I haven’t seen LoriC around before.
You, Drew68, are totally FOS.
You have ZERO understanding of Constitutional law, you are wrong about the requirements for natural born citizenship, and even if John Roberts seems absent a pair of stones, that changes nothing but our impressions regarding the nature of his manhood. It certainly doesn’t change the Constitution.
And, as to no one challenging his eligibility during the campaign, well, I didn’t know it was possible to stay asleep for that long. How did you manage it?
yhat is a lot of posse’s being called on this thread.
This should be more like The OK CORRAL
giddy up!
I wouldn’t have thought a thing about it if I had seen a long form BC.
That is dead Fish.
http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html
An 18th century French take on the subject of Natural Born is certainly interesting, but there is nothing that FORCES anyone to make it our 21st century rule.
The bottom line, in my mind, is that someone is going to have to irrefutably prove Obama is NOT a natural born US citizen, per current understanding of that term, before anyone takes this beyond the level of merely a curious conversation item.
sadly I can’t see how he can be compelled to cough up the Bc and the stats required.
We would need to find it first.
Damn it! That really bugs me to no end!
Jack, you are spewing crap. No one is claiming that Paine’s The Rights of Man is law, or that Vattel’s The Law of Nations is law. We are saying that the Constitution IS law, and we are demanding that it be followed.
And do YOU get this: The Federalist papers and other contemporary sources are routinely used to confirm the Framer’s intent, especially when the drift of language causes people, like you apparently, to impose more modern meanings on words that are not appropriate because they would not have been understood in such a way by the Framers.
You do get THAT, don’t you, PINHEAD.
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.