Posted on 09/14/2010 4:24:53 PM PDT by rxsid
The phrase you cite says “sujets naturels” - natural subjects, which would under common law be natural born subject in England, or natural born citizen in the US.
“The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government.”
Cited by the US Supreme Court.
Cited by the US Supreme Court.
Ok, I'll bite. So what the Supreme court said is this:
“The term “citizen,”(natural/original common law) as understood in our law, is precisely analogous(Similar in function but not in structure(meaning) and evolutionary origin(jus commune/natural/original common law v. jura corona, or lex prerogativa/feudal/statutory law)) to the term (“subject”jura corona, or lex prerogativa/feudal/statutory law) in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government.”
Thus when the founders & framers changed the form of government, they also changed the form of citizenship. Form being the meaning of the term not the function. It was how an individual became tied to the political state.
OK. You are right and I am wrong...so why do birthers lose all their cases?
After all, Vattel was the source of our government, our Constitution, and all meanings...so why doesn’t the Supreme Court know it?
Of course, what they wrote was that “the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government”, leaving the underlying meaning the same.
NO, this should be posted on every threads possible and shouted out from the rooftop so that the American people can wake up and see the truth. Don’t try censoring other FRiends. rxsid keep on posting as often you can!!!
Mrs. Rogers crossed his fingers when he pledge to the Constitution and is still using that paper in his bathroom!!!
Per the Journals of Congress in 1781, “sujets naturels” was translated as “natural subjects”. It seems entirely reasonable that a phrase such as “citoyens naturels” could be translated as “natural citizens”, doesn’t it? (Not that Google is the final word, but when I type in “citoyens naturels,” Google translates it as “natural citizens.”) So when Vattel is discussing citizens and says “Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens” it’s not beyond imagination that it could be translated as “The natural, or indigenous, are those who were born in the country of citizen parents.”
The two translations of Vattel used different english phrases. Were they translated by the same person? Would someone else come up with yet another translation? Given twenty different people translating the text, how many variations do you suppose they would end up with?
Saying that the translation of Vattel they were working with didn’t say NBC implies that they would have just copied and pasted, instead of coming up with original language that would be easily understood by everyone. They weren’t quoting Vattel, they were using the concepts of natural law, using Vattel as one of their references.
Who was their opponent or "enemy"???
The British King, and the LEAST thing they wanted in their new Constitution was anything that had to do with the King's common law, therefore the ONLY option was Vattel. Period!!!
The supreme court never defined NBC. They commented on it, quoted different, sometimes conflicting sources. They never had occasion to make a ruling on whether someone was an NBC or not. So it’s all dicta, isn’t it? If they actually end up taking one of these cases, I’m sure they will look at these opinions. But since NBC is the main point of the whole thing, I think they’ll be more careful in their research than just taking another justice’s dicta as fact.
I (obviously) agree. I don’t post that for those that have already seen it, I post for those that haven’t (i.e. lurkers, passer-byers, those who simply haven’t seen it, etc). I’ve been meaning to add to it/modify it (which I’ve started), and will, but just kinda busy. The “message”, IMO, needs to be restated. It’s because the left hasn’t succeeded in burying the message, at large, that this issue has not only not gone away...but has grown. Thanks.
After all, Vattel was the source of our government, our Constitution, and all meanings...so why doesn’t the Supreme Court know it?
I do not buy into Vattel being the ultimate authority though his woks are vital when you put them next to all the others such as Locke, Puffendorf, Domat, etc. What vattel did was tighten the meaning of natural born to limit it to birth within the territory and for good reason. The feudal law that was in place from the Brits throughout the world. There was a reason the 1795 Naturalization Act was repealed and the term “natural born citizen” was removed and replaced with just “citizen” in 1798 (war of 1812) and there is plenty of law review & court cases to back it up. Birth abroad falls under the Dept of State & statutory law according to the foreign affairs manual as well the former INS.
Of course, what they wrote was that “the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government”, leaving the underlying meaning the same.
Words have meaning, especially in law. Analogous is NOT synonymous thus meaing is everything while function has not changed.
http://www.belcherfoundation.org/joseph_story_on_rules_of_constitutional_interpretation.htm
The progressive movement has purposefully been obfuscating the law since the civil war. Let's call it “sore losers” because they wished to go back to big government where “we the people” no longer control the purse strings & population. If you really dig, you can see congressional records of them trying to transform this as far back as the late 1820’s.
You have to keep in the forefront of your mind that the progressives/Dems didn't want the slaves to be free as was laid out in the constitution & declaration.(remember in the north from the founding, blacks were allowed to vote & hold high positions) But more importantly you need to keep in the forefront the fact that one of the MAIN reasons stated in the Declaration of Independence was the fact that the Brits had forced the states to end ALL immigration from foreign nations.(He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners;) English subjects according to the crown were already considered members of the colonies due strictly to the fact of their birth on British soil and they did not recognize the citizenship of foreign parents who were traveling through their territory and thus made any children born to those parents, aliens to them. This IS NOT natural law (separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them). Feudal subjectship was birthed from statutory law put in place & kept in place by centuries of rulers who were drunk with power. The Brits expanding territory due to conquering foreign nations resulted in a massive loss of body count & men to serve in its military. For this a comprehensive study of the war of 1812 is a must.
FYI: Chester Arthur was a Democrat before he schmoozed his way into the new Republican party. He was NO conservative and the newly formed Conservative Republican party of Lincoln did NOT back him. Lincoln assassinated, Garfield assassinated within 4 election cycles, this was NO coincidence. Kennedy, the only Dem to be assassinated was a conservative dem fiscally and to change the nation, they need the control of the money & Kennedy a signed an order to begin the dismantling of the federal reserve bank.
For more than a century, progressive judges have been allowed to legislate from the bench without any repercussion(removal from the bench). But as we do know, this is NOT a settled matter and there needs to be just the RIGHT case before the SCOTUS & Lakin has the standing according to the US military code of justice. I believe we'll soon see very soon just how dedicated our current SCOTUS is to the constitution. Next day to watch, Sept 28th. There is a reason this usurper is not showing his original bonifides and I do not think it is because he has a different daddy.
The revolution wasn’t won by going to battle only one time. Repetition & success in winning over those coming off the koolaid is going to take many posting of the truth for it to sink in.
1790 Naturalization Act repealed & replaced with the 1795 Act. In 1795 the French war was escalating and the attack on US trade ships and the taking captive of US citizens who were former Brit subjects and forcing them into the service of the Crown or jailing & torturing them had begun. 1798 brought the 1st Alien & Sedition Act and the extended time(probation) period between filing to become a US citizen & actually gaining US citizenship.
If they wanted nothing to do with the common law, they had a funny way of showing it. More than half of the Framers were lawyers whose legal education and practice dealt with common law. They used their experience to modify and streamline common law, not toss it aside.
I don't see that in "We The People"???
Vattel noted in Law of Nations that “... there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.” We know that the founders read Vattel, so even if he didn’t use the specific term ‘natural born citizen,’ he made a distinction between natural subjects and naturalized subjects. While English law may have called children of foreigners born in the country ‘natural born subjects,’ Vattel is pointing out that these children are actually naturalized and are NOT natural subjects as he defined them. Since our founders rejected a great deal of common law, it can’t be assumed that states subscribed to this law unless it was specified in their charter or constitution. We already know that many states reserved the right of citizenship only to the children of citizens, which is expressed in their charters. This concept is also expressed in our constutition, “We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union ... secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity ...” This country was established for the people who rejected England and for their children (our posterity). Our naturalization laws thereafter defined who else could become a citizen of the United States. Any right of citizenship solely by geographical birth was not expressed nationally until the 14th amendment, but only for those persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The 14th amendment is thus a naturalization law, except that it does not recognize persons born under its circumstances as natural born citizens. Our ‘posterity’ (the children of the people of the United States) are the natural born citizens and require no statute nor amendment to define or establish their citizenship.
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.