Posted on 10/09/2010 12:21:49 AM PDT by rxsid
"Absolute proof the Founders knew and accepted Vattel`s French "naturels" to mean "natural born"
by: Teo the Bear @ http://www.thebirthers.org
Found in the Library of Congress Website
If you look at Article III in the body of the text below, you will see,
Les consuls et vice consuls respectifs ne pourront être pris que parmi les sujets naturels de la puissance qui les nommera. Tous seront appointés par leur souverain respectif, et ils ne pourront en conséquence faire aucun trafic ou commerce quelconque ni pour leur propre compte, ni pour le compte d'autrui.Going down further to the end you will find under number 3,
The respective Consuls and Vice Consuls shall only be taken from among the natural born subjects of the power nominating them. They shall all be appointed by their respective Sovereign, and in Consequence of such appointment they shall not exercise any traffic or commerce whatsoever either on their own account, or on account of any otherThis is pretty convincing proof that the framers did not need to wait for the 1797 translated edition of Vattel's Law of Nations. It appears they were well apt to translate it themselves. This accepted translation of 'naturel' in 1781, predates John Jay's 1787 letter to George Washington by 6 years.Translation by Charles Thomson secretary of the Continental Congress
[Note by CDR K: This 'naturels' means 'natural born' translation in 1781 was subsequently confirmed by the 1797 translation of the part of the relevant sentence and paragraph in Vattel's Law of Nation, Vol.1, Chapter 19, Section 212, that is, "natural-born Citizens, are those born in the country, to parents who are citizens". Thus when the founders and framers wrote the Constitution in 1787 they clearly knew what "natural born Citizen" meant when they upgraded the Citizenship requirement in Article II from simply being a "born Citizen" as proposed by Hamilton to that of being a "natural born Citizen" as recommended by Jay as a strong check against foreign influence on the persons in the future who would be President and Commander of the military. And that meaning was understood to be a person born in the country to parents who are Citizens of the country. Such a person has sole allegiance and unity of citizenship at birth to only the United States. That was the intent of the founders and framers for that legal term of art, natural born Citizen, in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. This restriction on the type of Citizen who could be President was a national security issue to them back then and it is still a national security issue to us now.]
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/10/absoloute-proof-founding-fathers-knew.html
When Obama fades from history and from the Whitehouse I honestly hope the whole nation realizes how much the country as a whole was duped by this impostor.
never let up no matter how long it takes, information like this will NOT be used just to remove Obama or to prevent him from re-election...no its going to persist years from now so we won’t have several generations worth of schoolbooks touting him as the most qualified POTUS, or the many schools, libraries or expressways named after him.
His name will be a new historic definition of a “natural born” enemy of the state.
And if he was born in Kenya, and his parents are who they are claimed to be and were married (which appears to be the case since there are divorce papers), she couldn’t even have conferred US citizenship of any kind to him, not being old enough to do so.
So it’s all very interesting.
No, it doesn't do any such thing. Show where any plausible definition of the term natural-born citizen makes any mention of marriage.
Obama has a legally recognized father. That is sufficient proof of paternity under the law. That this legally recognized father was never a citizen, just a student here temporarily with no permanent domicile, creates numerous areas of doubt regarding Obama being a natural-born citizen.
It matters not one whit, whether Obama, Sr. had a tribal marriage in Kenya and honestly it doesn't matter if he was even the biological father. Legalities are what governs the matter, and legalities say Obama, Sr. was his father. Our President has accepted this as fact in a highly public manner, having published a book he presumably authored that spends a great deal of time and energy on this very subject.
Again, legally speaking, there is no doubt about who Barack Hussein Obama's father was, under the law. Everything else is just more smoke and mirrors.
He could have been born on the rug in the Oval Office and still would not be a natural-born citizen due to having a nonresident alien father, patlin. So, you're mistaken.
... and read my reply to you again. Please show me where marriage enters into any remotely recognized definition of natural-born citizen. I’ve never seen it, all reference is to “parent.” Obama, Sr. is legally recognized as father. That establishes paternity legally, and it establishes birth status as far as being a natural-born citizen, or not. He clearly was not on this basis.
Obama, Sr. was not even a resident alien, he never had any intention of becoming a US citizen, and didn’t. His own mother expatriated, marrying two foreign nationals from nations that did not recognize dual citizenship. Obama very well could have been raised by no one with any sense of American-ness about them at all, and no legal ties to the nation at all.
Citizenship follows the condition of the father. Wives’s citizenship was derivative of the husband in the United States as recently as the twenties, and still is in much of the world.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a4_2_1s4.html
A treatise on the law of citizenship in the United States: treated historically By Prentiss Webster
http://books.google.com/books?id=ky-TxmjrU0YC&printsec=toc#v=onepage&q=illegitimate&f=false
A treatise on citizenship: by birth and by naturalization, with reference to ... By Alexander Porter Morse
Cyclopedia of law and procedure, Volume 7 By William Mack, Howard Pervear Nash 1903
Your very first link makes no reference at all to marriage, patlin. Perhaps you’d care to point out why you feel these to be pertinent.
Commentaries on American law, Volume 2 By James Kent
pg 70...Kent speaking of inheritance per US laws of inheritance/citizenship by descent: “...and if he dies within the six years, his heirs being inhabitants of the United States, take by descent, equally as if he had been a citizen.”
Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, founder of Harvard law school cites in his treatise on conflicts of laws 1834:
§ 46. Without speculating upon all the various cases, which may be started upon this subject, it may be useful to collect together some of the more important rules, which have been generally adopted, as guides in cases of most familiar occurrence. First, the place of birth of a person is considered as his domicil, if it is at the time of his birth the domicil of his parents. Patris originem unusquisque sequitur.1 This is usually denominated the domicil of nativity, domicilium originis. But, if the parents are then on a visit, or on a journey (in itinere), the home of the parents (at least if it is in the same country) will be deemed the domicil of nativity.* If he is an illegitimate child, he follows the domicil of his mother. Ejus, qui justum patrem non habet, prima origo a matre.* Secondly, the domicil of birth of minors continues, until they have obtained a new domicil. Thirdly, minors are generally deemed incapable, proprio marte, of changing their domicil during their minority; and therefore retain the domicil of their parents; and if the parents change their domicil, that of the infant children follows it; and if the father dies, his last domicil is that of the infant children.4 Placet etiam filiumfamilias domicilium habere posse, non utique ibi, ubi pater habuit, sed ubicunque ipse constituit.
http://books.google.com/books?printsec=frontcover&pg=PA44&id=4Ao9AAAAIAAJ#v=onepage&q&f=false
You have a child born to parents from 2 different countries. They each hold citizenship in different countries. For the citizenship of the child born either in wedlock or out of wedlock, you have to go to International Private Law aka International Private Laws of Nations and you have to look also at the treaties between the countries at the time of the child's birth. At the time of Obama’s birth, England did not recognize SAD’s citizenship if the marriage was legit, thus Obama was born a Brit & nothing else. If the marriage records are fake & he was born a bastard, he is was born soley an American citizen aka a NBC. GET IT!!!!
... according to the laws of England. We’re discussing the laws of the United States, if you care to recall.
Who was the legally recognized father and what was the citizenship of that father, patlin?
[Blackstone Commentaries (1765): When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king's dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty's English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king's ambassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England's allegiance, represented by his father, the ambassador.
To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband's consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception;...]
This is quite interesting as the feudal law that the Brits had adopted served them well until they found themselves not in control of the land in which they found themselves living in, thus they had to revert back to some connection to the laws of nature that were still deeply rooted in the English common law. This allowed for the later expansion of birth by descent & not by land that was the original law of the land per the original English Constitution. And of course by the laws of nature which Blackstone quotes, a man can not owe 2 allegiances at the same time. He can not serve to 2 masters & thus the Americans entering the War of 1812. The Brits were refusing to acknowledge the US citizenship of naturalized former Brit subjects. The Brits recognized the part of natural law of citizenship by descent, but still refused to acknowledge the law of nature & the right of a person to change his station/domicil thus the Brits did not acknowledge to right of the person to throw off the old allegiance. The Expatriation Act of 1868 & subsequent treaty between the Brits & the US took care of that forever.
You have to define legally recognized. One pertains to legally obligated to support the child which has nothing to do with citizenship of the child unless there is a court proceeding in which a judge formally signed documentation. In England, that would have had to have been Parliament or an equal legal act in a British court of law in Kenya. SAD would have had to formally declare that her citizenship held no weight of law in regards to the child and his civil status. Treaties ARE the law & the law/existing treaty in 1961 stated a child born out of wedlock did not confer the citizenship of the father on the child.
So, you believe international law will be used to proclaim the President of the United States a bastard in order to make an end run around the United States Constitutional requirment that our President be a natural born citizen, do I have that about right?
Furthermore, in order for this scenario to be remotely plausible, you also believe Kenyan tribal custom to override the laws of the State of Hawaii and the United States as pertains to the legality of the marriage between Obama, Sr. and Stanely Ann Dunham as recorded in divorce documents from 1964, and that this marriage will be annulled posthumously by some international court, correct?
Do you realize how preposterous all this is?
Obama’s father was a noncitizen. He wasn’t even a resident alien. By inference, according to dicta from several Supreme Court decisions, he is therefore not a natural-born citizen or that status is cast into doubt.
This relies on no foreign law, it relies upon facts on the ground and US legal precedent only. It’s by far and away the more rational course. You should consider it, patlin.
patlin,
First, I do not know who you are and only know you as patlin. I do not recall you ever sending me any information.
Second, you do great work and you are greatly appreciated by me.
Third, would you explain to me what “original sources of information” you sent to me and for which I did not credit you. Would you also tell me how you discovered those “original sources.”
Fourth, in what medium do you expect me to credit your work?
Fifth, I am Mario Apuzzo (”Puzo”), not Teo the Bear.
private reply sent to your gmail account
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2499410/posts?q=1&;page=401 post 423. April 27.
Also, I never said the marriage wasn't real. I have no reason to believe the marriage wasn't legit, thus I believe Obama was born a Brit & only a Brit because his parents were married. But there are others here who feel differently. They think it doesn't matter if the parents were married & that is just plain wrong & ignorant. I also believe he became an Indonesian by his mother renouncing his citizenship per the information from her passport records as well as the Soetoro divorce which states there were 2 children from the marriage, one under 18 & one above the age of 18 & still dependent on the parties for education expenses. I want to know when he renounced that Indonesian citizenship, what passports he has traveled on & why he does not have a legitimate SS# associated with all Illinois records as well as his selective service record.
We know he was not a NBC, and we also do not know if & when he legally & formally renounced his Indonesian citizenship. The later is just as important as the former.
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.