Posted on 02/27/2011 7:26:01 PM PST by STE=Q
““The Naturals, or indigenous, are those who are born in the country of [their] parents [who are] citizens.””
Except the Founders did NOT write that the President must be a natural citizen, a native citizen, or an indigenous citizen. They used “natural born citizen”, which had an established legal meaning and was NOT found in Vattel.
Vattel did NOT use ‘natural born citizen’, nor would it be a good translation - as you have agreed.
Mr. Rogers wrote: “Vattel did NOT use ‘natural born citizen’, nor would it be a good translation - as you have agreed.”
Well, we can play all day long; Since Vattel was Swiss, his primary language was probably German, with French as a secondary. I say that because I’ve noticed a lot of German sentence structure in his writings. So, who is to say that he didn’t mean “Natural Born” in that context? Only Vattel knows for sure. But, this is all just a bunch of minutia and of little consequence—as I will explain a little later.
What I find more important is that Blackstone did not use the phrase “natural born citizen” on which you assume the “established” legal meaning was based and carried forward into the U.S. Constitution (which has rejected many “established” legal meanings in favor of truly American ones). No, what is really telling is that Blackstone used the phrase “natural born SUBJECTS.”
Note how Vattel consistently calls denizens of a country “citizens,” and not “subjects.” That is very telling as to whose train of thought the Founding Fathers were latching onto concerning citizenship.
Furthermore, if we stick with Blackstone’s “established” rule of law, not all “natural born subjects” can become the king. Yet, all “natural born citizens” who fulfill the requirements of Article II can become the President. There’s a big difference in the thought process, there.
All in all, the actual origins of the phrase “Natural Born Citizen” and it’s implied meaning as used in the U.S. Constitution is a tricky slope to navigate with absolute certainty.
Ergo, to say that the Founding Fathers were solely relying upon Blackstone’s “established” definition of “natural born subject” as the entire foundation for Article II’s Natural Born Clause is to ignore evidence to the contrary.
Personally, I think it was a bit of both Blackstone and Vattel who have influenced the Founding Fathers’ interpretation of “Natural Born.” Remember, “Founding Fathers” is plural, not singular; Not every Founding Father had the same, exact mental conception of “Natural Born.”
So, one needs to determine the INTENT of the Natural Born clause in order to accurately determine if one is in violation of said clause.
Because, as I implied earlier, all of this jibber-jabber over whose definition of “Natural Born Citizen” was used is just a bunch of minutia and is used by Obama and his “psychophants” to hide the fact that Obama is absolutely, unequivocally in violation of the INTENT behind Article II, Section 1.
Since it can be shown (via quotes and writing) that the Founding Fathers’ INTENT behind the Natural Born clause was to help insure against divided loyalties, this is what one must use when determining the true meaning behind “Natural Born.”
In my own opinion, because Obama holds dual loyalties and has openly demonstrated that he is not solely loyal to America and Her People, he is NOT Natural Born.
Let me explain. Obama was born with dual citizenship—British-Kenyan and American. On the surface, this would have presented little problem to the INTENT behind the Natural Born Clause.
However, his little jaunt to Kenya in 2006 in which he meddled in the affairs of the Kenyan government and the Kenyan elections by stumping for and drumming up support for a fascist, commie like Odinga (who was opposing the established government at that time) shows his loyalties are divided.
In my mind, at that moment, he gave up any claim he might of had to Natural Born Citizenship as it was INTENDED by the Founding Fathers.
Yup, the INTENT of the law is the key behind understanding the law and keeps one from losing sight of the big picture while quibbling over minutia such as whose definition of a nebulous term was used to write a law.
Cheers
Erratum:
In all fairness, I just remembered that Vattel used the phrase “les sujets naturels” which translates out to “the subjects natural” in another section of his book. So, it’s not quite accurate of me to have said that Vattel “consistently” calls the denizens of a country “citizens.” More like; Vattel overwhelmingly calls the denizens of a country “citizens.”
Furthermore, I seem to recall someone on another thread pointing out that J. Patsall was responsible for coining the term “Natural Born Citizen” back in the mid 1770’s. I’d Google it for ya’, but “ça ne fait rien.”
Cheers
DoctorBulldog:
“I seem to recall someone on another thread pointing out that J. Patsall was responsible for coining the term “Natural Born Citizen” back in the mid 1770’s”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2275574/posts#ref01
Scroll to question # 4:
How is “natural born citizen” defined?
Patsall is well referenced.
PS; DoctorBulldog, as always your comments are most enlightening.
Thank you for posting.
STE=Q
I love to get you on a tear....
Bulldog, what trip to Kenya? The one after which 2500-3000 Christians were massacred, some burned alive in their churches by Odinga-Obama thugs .... that series of Obama/Odinga stump speeches after which 200,000 largely Christian Kikuyus were displaced from their home villages and after which famine hit Kenya ... that trip? .... that trip after which Obama/Soetoro lobbied the UN and the State Department to broker a deal with Odinga that made him Prime Minister after he lost the Presidential election, or threaten to plunge Kenya into civil war? ...the trip where Dick Morris, fees paid by Soros and the Clinton Foundation, was the brains behind Odinga's loss in an internationally monitored election? That trip?
Bulldog, that trip never happened. If it had happened, it would certainly have been page 1 above the fold in the NYT. Obama/Soetoro would have been charged under the Hatch Act and would have been forced to return the millions he raised for Odinga. Every time Dick Morris talked to Helmet-Head Hannity, conservatives would riot in the streets.
Surely Bulldog, you are wrong. You are influenced by those faked BBC newsreels. What decent American would vote for a guy who went on a trip like that to support a no-good commie jihadist murdering SOB like Odinga? Next, you'll tell me ole whatisname then invited him to the Inauguration? Nah. Impossible.
Ms Rogers = “Fifth Columnar”!!!
Don’t underestimate ms. rogers, who has been all over the world and definitely “commands” fluently in the French language, aka a FINO here!!!
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.