Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Adams papers, Lee family papers to prove NBC in Constitution came from Vattel?
Examiner.com (comments) ^ | 10/15/2009 | rxsid

Posted on 10/15/2009 2:58:49 PM PDT by rxsid

Joe says:
Gorefan - My heritage includes the Adams of Massachusetts and the Herndons of Virginia. The Adams papers I am in possession of plainly state they looked to "Vattel's Law of Nations" for guidance in determining who might be qualified as a "natural born Citizen". (Yes, they capitalized "Citizen".) Do you actually believe there was no discussion of the topic by the Founding Fathers? Are you truly that ignorant of how well the Founding Fathers understood the law and its possible impact on future generations? It is very clear you haven't a clue how well educated and intelligent the Founding Fathers were. Most were conversant in Latin and Greek, plus Hebrew and Aramaic.
October 14, 10:48 PM

Joe says:
My family is in possession of over seven thousand files of Adams documents that have been passed from generation to generation. We know what our forebears intended, we are not guessing and jumping to conclusions. Every possible legal scenario was thoroughly discussed and carefully decided by the Founding Fathers. Contrary to prevailing opinion, they left NOTHING to chance. I will be sharing our documents with the best qualified attorneys working on the Obama eligibility cases. Get used to it, Obama is finished and he knows it. Obama is knowingly leading his blinded followers down the paths of deceit and directly into the darkened halls of shame.
October 14, 11:00 PM

Joe says:
My family also counts among our forebears King O'Leathlobhair (pronounced OWE LAL_OW_IR), who was ruler of all England in the third century A.D. The name O'Leathlobhair means "seeker of justice" and it is the original term from which the word "lawyer" was derived around the year 100 B.C. We've been well known as meticulous practitioners of the law since before the birth of Christ. In that time, I believe we have acquired a rather firm grasp of the basic ideas of how laws are to be properly formulated and administered. Obama shall not be allowed to continue to illegally retain the office of president.
October 14, 11:53 PM

"John says:
The Adams papers I am in possession of plainly state they looked to "Vattel's Law of Nations" for guidance in determining who might be qualified as a "natural born Citizen"."

Joe - Please tell me you're kidding
October 15, 12:07 AM

Joe says:
John - This is an extremely serious matter, I do not "kid" about such issues.
October 15, 12:08 AM

Joe says:
My family and others have quietly observed and awaited the full winnowing of the wheat from the chaff in the legal matter of Obama's lack of eligibility. We are now preparing to act in unison to see that the law is enforced. The subject of "natural born Citizen" has never before been at issue during the term of a sitting president. The matter shall be decided fairly and equitably from information contained within very clear and meet and proper archived resources. The Lees of Virginia and other families also possess within their private archives a great deal of documentation regarding the intent of the Founding Fathers. Those who believe this issue was not debated and decided long ago haven't been previously afforded access to the existing documents.
October 15, 12:29 AM

John says:
Joe - I've been researching this subject for a year. Trust me, I know exactly how serious this is. I'd like to talk to you more but offline. If you're interested, email me at theoriginalist@rocketmail.com
October 15, 12:46 AM

Joe says:
The trump cards are face-up on the table for all to see. The "natural born Citizen" issue is neither mysterious, nor undecided. Always remember : Only patience, wisdom, and forebearance bring justice, the law shall not be hastened to conclusion. I must now depart. At noon today, a real estate closing demands my attention. I bid you all a good evening and may God bless America.
October 15, 12:52 AM

Joe says:
John - I shall contact you later today. Thank you for researching the issue and rest assured many families hold information that will prove vitally important to serious practitioners of the law.
October 15, 12:57 AM


TOPICS: Books/Literature; Education; History; Reference
KEYWORDS: adams; birthcertificate; birthers; bob152; certifigate; framers; godsgravesglyphs; nbc; obama; unraveling; vattel
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-111 next last
To: x

I don’t have time to copy your comments, but I read them. Let me put it this way:

They had to resort to basic natural, international law because each state was its own effective nation, hence called a “state,” under the Articles of Confederation.

And that is what they did.

And natural law stipulates hereditary right by paternity. That is what Vattel and the founders all understood, by nature.


81 posted on 10/16/2009 2:55:04 PM PDT by unspun (PRAY & WORK FOR FREEDOM - investigatingobama.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
They came pretty darn close with the (first part of the) Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration was very indicative: "the laws of nature and nature's God."

The Bible spelled out hereditary right. It's a natural fact.

82 posted on 10/16/2009 2:56:29 PM PDT by unspun (PRAY & WORK FOR FREEDOM - investigatingobama.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: mlo
Miss the point: what matters is the intent of the framers of the constitutional convention. The author says he has documents [Adams] that cite Vattel for reference...the part the framers chose is the important part....and illuminate the meaning of NBO according to the intent at the time of construction of the US Constitution by that gaggle of lawyers and patriots. That's what's important...and fundamental to the case.
83 posted on 10/16/2009 3:32:57 PM PDT by dasboot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: dasboot

It’s not implausible, that some descendant, somewhere, might possess authentic, private papers, once belonging to one of our Founders. It’s not implausible that such papers might be somehow pertinent to the matter at hand.

But, the anonymous poster makes implausible claims of heredity, in a very self-aggrandizing manner.

This is very likely another scam. I wouldn’t put much store in it at all.


84 posted on 10/16/2009 3:44:52 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: dasboot
"Miss the point: what matters is the intent of the framers of the constitutional convention."

Exactly. Then how could it miss the point? Vattel doesn't even say what birthers keep giving him credit for. I'd say that's a pretty big problem with using him to understand their intent.

"The author says he has documents [Adams] that cite Vattel for reference..."

The author being an anonymous guy on the internet trying to argue the birther cause, who didn't actually post any documents? That guy?

"the part the framers chose is the important part"

They didn't choose any part. That's the point.

"and illuminate the meaning of NBO according to the intent at the time of construction of the US Constitution by that gaggle of lawyers and patriots. That's what's important...and fundamental to the case."

Yes it is. And some guy on the internet with phantom documents isn't going to help. But neither will Vattel. In fact, it's not a mystery what the founders meant. Birthers just don't like it.

85 posted on 10/16/2009 3:46:37 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: unspun; x

Quibbling with the premise, as if it’s not
relevant or logical, seems to be an exercise
in fantasy and wishful thinking by one who
chooses to ignore the very foundation of its
common sense and fundamental soundness.


86 posted on 10/16/2009 4:13:22 PM PDT by STARWISE (The Art & Science Institute of Chicago Politics NE Div: now open at the White House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
If all that fails, a new election is an option???

It has become a total mess that no normal individual could have foreseen!!!

87 posted on 10/16/2009 7:35:40 PM PDT by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: stockpirate

I am sure they get full benefits!!!


88 posted on 10/16/2009 7:42:08 PM PDT by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: thecraw
Sounds like the guy calling Hannity on radio today saying Sean was spreading fear among seniors when saying that medicare would be cut by $500 billion. The guy said it was NOT in the bill which Hannity retorted!

The guy then said that he had read Senator Bauccus' bill over and over again and it was not in the bill!!

Hannity then put him on his place asking how he could have read a bill over and over and over again when the bill has not yet been written!!!

Do you get the point how all these DoJ (Aporn) employees and distractors are working here of the F.R.???

89 posted on 10/16/2009 7:52:14 PM PDT by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
Are you opposed to that phrase?

Is your own son a NBC??

90 posted on 10/16/2009 7:55:58 PM PDT by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

Comment #91 Removed by Moderator

To: danamco
Is your own son a NBC??

My son was born at Balboa Naval Hospital, San Diego, California, United States of America. He certainly is.

92 posted on 10/16/2009 8:24:44 PM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: mlo

The question isn’t “rules.”

It’s definitions. Words. What they mean.

You have displayed your English illiteracy here.

John Jay was literate in English, French, Latin and Greek.


93 posted on 10/16/2009 8:28:19 PM PDT by Plummz (pro-constitution, anti-corruption)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Plummz
"You have displayed your English illiteracy here."

Since I addressed the question of "definitions" in my post, the display is yours.

94 posted on 10/16/2009 8:42:23 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: mlo
Vattel never said that was not the case in England,

That's exactly what he said. I'm guessing you're as illiterate, likely more so, in French as you are in English; so it's it's easy to see how this simple point eludes you.

and he isn' a valid cite for proving the practice in England.

LOLz.
Vattel was the standard reference text on the subject, moron.

95 posted on 10/16/2009 8:59:55 PM PDT by Plummz (pro-constitution, anti-corruption)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Plummz
"That's exactly what he said."

No, it isn't. You are making this up. Quote it.

96 posted on 10/16/2009 9:03:50 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
I have a couple of questions for those who think Vattel's writings rule out Obama's NBC-ness:

1. I see a lot being made over the sentence, "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." Some seem to think that the use of the plural "parents" must mean both parents have to be citizens. But how would they have written it if they really did only mean one--"those born in the country, of a parent who is a citizen"? Doesn't that sound weird, like all NBCs must have the same parent? One might argue that they could easily have written "...of at least one parent who is a citizen" if that's what they meant; but one could also argue that they could even more easily have written "...of two parents who are citizens" if that was important. The argument from grammar seems weak to me, and I'm wondering how you think it should have been worded.

2. I also see a lot made about "those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers," and the assertion that citizenship cannot be passed through the mother unless the father is dead. I can see that flying in 1758 France, but does anyone really think that in 2009 America a court is going to rule that males are somehow more able to transmit citizenship than females?

97 posted on 10/16/2009 10:26:24 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mlo

You already did yourself, you illiterate twit.


98 posted on 10/16/2009 11:09:35 PM PDT by Plummz (pro-constitution, anti-corruption)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

Assuming birth in HI, he was born a dual national. There is no evidence the framers intended for someone with divided allegiences from birth, to be Commader in Chief. There is simply no known definition from the day that would support dual national at birth = Natural Born Citizen.


99 posted on 10/16/2009 11:45:55 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: unspun

correct.


100 posted on 10/16/2009 11:47:37 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-111 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson