Replies

I had to butcher this article to make it legal so it completely loses its impact. If you want to rwad the whole thing go to Canada "Free Press". There has never been any doubt in my mind that Barry Hussein Sotero (or whatever his name is) fails the natural born citizen qualification. His father was not a citizen and he has not proven where he was born. When given the opportunity to do so he has, instead, opted to spend millions of dollars to perpetuate a conspiracy that is extremely damaging to this country as well as his own legacy. Why would he needlessly draghimself and the country through this crap unless he was hiding something? This can not be tactical political maneuvering at this point. It has gone on too long and is doing harm to the country.

And then there's this:

It's not just Obama's original birth certificate at issue. > WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, his Punahou school records, his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, his medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.

Not making any claims but there is an error in the article here:

“It is the source from which our nation’s Founding Fathers entered those words into the US Constitution, under Article II—Section I—Clause V;

“No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President;”

Not “native” or “naturalized” or “citizen,” but only “natural born” citizens can hold the office of president.”

When he states “Not “native” or “naturalized” **or “citizen,”** but only “natural born” citizens....” he refutes what is stated in the Constitution:

“No person except a natural born citizen, **or a citizen** of the United States,...”

IOW, he contradicts himself quite evidently. I’m surprised he made such a mistake when it’s there for all to see.

Again, not saying whether it is operative or not - just that he is mistaken by saying that it doesn’t say “OR citizen”. It clearly does.

“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

Vattel didn’t say that in the French, nor did any English translation say it until AFTER the Constitution was written.

The individual colonies had laws about citizenship, using the term natural born subject. Those laws were changed after the Revolution to say natural born citizen.

From a legal case involving inheritance in 1844:

(page 246)
And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. “No person except a natural bom citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” &c. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.

(pg 250)
6. Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.

http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/Lynch_v_Clarke_1844_ocr.pdf

Agree or not, it is clear that long before Obama, courts were concluding that NBC was not based on Vattel.

The term “natural born citizen” next appears in the Law of Nations, a treaty between nations which established certain universal standards, one of which being the term “natural born citizen.”

Anyone ignorant enough of history and the law to write this sentence should be ignored.

The Law of Nations is not and never was a treaty. It's not and never was a document with precise language and terminology. At the time the Constitution was written it was roughly equivalent in function to what we now call "international law," was largely unwritten except where it had been incorporated into treaties, and was assumed to be based on Natural Law, a related but distinct concept.

Nowhere but in the BOOK written by Vattel is the term NBC defined, at the time. But his book is not the Law of Nations, it's a book about the Law of Nations.

Similarly, I could write and published a book entitled "International Law." That wouldn't make its contents law binding throughout the world.

The term was first used by the British Royal family. The question at the time was how to keep the Royal bloodline intact when members of the Royal family traveled abroad extensively, often giving birth to offspring while abroad, therefore bringing the issue of “native born” into question.

I have seen absolutely no evidence this is the case. Succession to the throne was always by blood lineage (with exceptions for coups, invasions, rebellions, Acts of Parliament, etc.) and had nothing whatsoever to do with citizenship.

In fact, foreigners succeeded to the throne on numerous occasions. Off the top of my head I can think of a Dutchman, a Scot and a German who did so. Nobody asked (or cared) whether they were natural-born citizens or not. Unless they wanted their heads chopped off.