He was an American. Then he was Indonesian. Now, he's an American.
Obama's school record maintained by Fransiskus-Assisi Catholic School, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Posted on 07/18/2012 2:31:08 PM PDT by WXRGina
Thinking such as yours is why our Constitution is deader than fried chicken.
Those of us who cherish it, like the author of this excellent piece, will continue to fight to return it to authority.
Vattel is not the law. The constitution -- as written, not as informally amended by FR posters, statutes, treaties, and court decisions of the US are. Persuade a Federal court that NBC must be understood as Vattel describes it, then get back to us.
Until then, the operating precedent is English common law, which recognizes jus soli as sufficient for NBC status, and and the Wong Kim Ark decision, which incorporated that common law precedent into American jurisprudence.
I hope all of our unenlightened freepers read this thread and stop pushing Jindal and Rubio for VP.
It’s not “balderdash.” It’s the truth.
Ms. Publius Huldah is not saying Vattel is the law. She is using him to illustrate the common knowledge of the founders and their CLEAR intent in the meaning of the words defining natural born citizen.
It’s not hard, but the truth is not something everyone wants to accept.
Thanks for the posting, WXRGina!
Your explanation doesn’t explain
A: The term NBC doesn’t appear in any translation of Vattel prior to 1797 - 10 years AFTER the Constitution was written. If they were following Vattel, why didn’t they use the terms VATTEL used: native, or indigenous,
B: one of the ratifying legislatures used ‘natural born subject’ and ‘natural born citizen’ interchangeably during the years before and after the Constitution was drafted. If a ratifying legislature thought the terms NBC & NBS were interchangeable, why were they wrong?
There is a reason why the courts in the 1800s rejected your interpretation, and why in 1898 the US Supreme Court rejected it. Someone is welcome to argue the dissent in WKA was right and the decision was wrong, but the decision hasn’t been challenged since it was made in 1898.
The WKA decision (I recommend reading both the decision and the dissent):
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
Mr. Rogers, you appear to be trying really hard to deny the simple truth of what the founders meant when they distinguished between “citizen”—for representatives and senators—and “natural born citizen” for president and vice-president, which Ms. Publius Huldah clearly laid out.
Is this because you are a Rubio supporter or an Obama supporter?
You’re very welcome, Octex!
The Principal framer (John Bingham) of the 14th amendment
and in particular the CITIZENSHIP clause had this to say
during a debate on the house floor regarding the 14th
amendment:
Center column 3rd paragraph down:
Source:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=2
>! you have to turn to page 1291 !>
Bingham states: I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill],
which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the
jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language
of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen… . . – John Bingham, framer of the 14 amendment in the United States House on March 9, 1866”
Charles Pinckney
Signer of the United States Constitution, Governor of South
Carolina. Senator and a member of the House of Representatives.
“Therefore, we can say with confidence that a natural-born
citizen of the United States means those persons born
whose father the United States already has an established
jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are
themselves citizens of the United States.”
“Mr. Rogers, you appear to be trying really hard to deny the simple truth of what the founders meant when they distinguished between “citizen”—for representatives and senators—and “natural born citizen” for president and vice-president, which Ms. Publius Huldah clearly laid out.”
Did you know there is a difference between a naturalized citizen and someone who is born a citizen? The difference is that the latter can become President, while the former cannot.
This legal lesson was free of charge. But if you prefer, you can donate money to the birthers cases. Or you can burn it in a fireplace. Either will have the same legal effect, but the latter might provide warmth.
“So how does Vattel — less cited than Pufendorf or Grotius, Hobbes or Rousseau, and far less cited than Blackstone or Coke — all of a sudden end up being the one and only authoritative source for the Founders’ thinking about citizenship? “
Because it gives the desired result.
Rubio and Jindal are natural born Citizens. As is McCain, Romney, Fortuno, and Martinez.
Ted Cruz, since he was born in Canada, is not, unfortunately. Ted Cruz can still be put on the SCOTUS.
I have read that scholars conclude “natural born” meant the same as “native born” and was used interchangably.
That was written, in a study included in the Congressional Record, which stated George Romney was NOT eligible, as he was born in Mexico.
Right-on! Thanks for the extra Vattel!
But Mitt was in Michigan, therefore he is nbC
Well done, Political Junkie!
I’m adding your valuable & informative comment as a Post Script to the edition on my website, hat tip to you.
He was an American only by using fraudulent ID/name/parentage, though.
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.