Posted on 11/30/2011 4:54:22 AM PST by Natufian
The Constitution sets out three eligibility requirements to be President: one must be 35 years of age, a "resident within the United States" for 14 years, and a "natural born Citizen"
(Excerpt) Read more at scribd.com ...
The federal judge stated Vattel is part of the common law. I guess you missed that part.
JQA states its in the Constitution.
Now now lets not get your panties all ruffled. The states are sovereign this makes Vattel applicable to the states. Oops this comes from Founder.
let me sort it out for ya...here’s what the court said..
pay attention..
“The law of nations, when applicable, to an existing condition of affairs in a country, becomes a part of the common law of that country”
Do you want this repeated? have you got it? Let me continue..let us know if you need to take a moment to digest this..
He continues...”Vattel, in his law of nations page 101 says:
“As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens.”
let me skip..to this..”this law of nature as far as it has become a part of the common law, .....must be the rule.”
This from a Federal Judge
The Federal Judge ain’t no Swiss judge.
Your words have validity..they should be silenced in a tomb.
Your quoting an opinion, as best I can tell from the little excerpt, from a concurring opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford - one of the most notorious cases in our nation’s history.
Vattel was cited by the DISSENT in WKA. DISSENT, as in, LOSER. Like birthers. Losers.
remember to maintain your bearing..
Actually its from United States v Ward
Federal Judge Erskine Mayo Ross, a grad VMI, confederate soldier. He was a Democrat.
His bio..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erskine_Mayo_Ross
What in the hell are you talking about?
US v Ward is a water issue (”Section 311(b)(3) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act prohibits the discharge of oil into navigable waters”), involving international law. Not citizenship. Vattel’s name does not appear in the decision.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/448/242/case.html
You also said it was from Justice Daniel, who lived in the 1800s.
Put your beer down, sober up, and post when you can keep your thoughts semi-straight.
No, he did not say that Vattel is part of common law. Please post the FULL QUOTE and link, if you think otherwise.
A Swiss writer in the 1750s was NOT a part of common law.
The reference to Scott is simple..Vattel is cited natural born citizens are born to citizen parents.
You radical anti Constitutionalists state its impossible to interpret naturels to natural born citizen..
The judge did.
Vattel never wrote about NBCs. That bad translation was made after the Constitution. Only an idiot tries to read a document written in 1787 and say the terms in it were created by a translation made in 1797.
Idiot. Birther. Loser. Synonyms.
Seems you need some help..locating the case..no problem..
http://openjurist.org/42/f1d/320
scroll to the second page
A circuit court case from 1890 about Indians, and what makes a person an Indian in the eyes of the law.
Perhaps you should try reading WKA instead. Or are you saying that Obama is half-Apache...
You have it exactly bassackwards as is everything else you think and write. The case was about what makes a person a NON-INDIAN.
Apparently the courts decided what makes a person a NON-INDIAN is having American citizenship inherited through their father. Here is ANOTHER example of "Partus sequitur Patrem" as decided by American Federal courts.
Ex Parte Reynolds.
And just for kicks, i'll include the case just afterwards which is The United States v Rogers. It is appropriate, because that would seem to be the proper way to regard you.
PA-RIVER wrote: “I’m telling you I was taught that it required two citizen parents, almost 40 years ago. The summer before Obama was elected, I was in shock that a dual citizen was running for president.”
Shocked enough to post about it in the summer of 2008? I didn’t know anyone was on it until Leo Donofrio announced his first suit in October or November 2008. Can you cite it?
“There are other people on these threads that say the same thing.”
And not one verifiable citation.
Here’s my claim again: “In our time there were no advocates for the theory that a native-born citizen’s eligibility depends upon the citizenship of his parents. Of course that changed in 2008, when a certain faction wanted reasons to argue that Barack Obama cannot be president.”
That should be easy to disprove if false.
He’s half Kenyan and half Indonesian.
Ms Rogers: “no one gives a flying fuck about Vattel.”
Dear Sir York in Pennsylvania Novr 8. 1777 The following Books are much wanted by some Gentlemen of Congress, & are not to be procured in this Place; if they are to be found in the Pennsylvania Library, which We are informed is removed by Order of your Excellency to Lancaster, I shall be much obliged to You for the Loan thereof being with respect your Excellency’s very huml sert, E Gerry
Vattel’s Law of Nations
Ms Rogers: “no one gives a flying fuck about Vattel.”
Journal of the Senate of the United States of America
Ordered, That the Secretary purchase Blackstone’s Commentaries, and Vattel’s Law of Nature and Nations, for the use of the Senate.
Ms Rogers: “no one gives a flying fuck about Vattel.”
I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising State make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations Ben Franklin, John Jay and Dickinson
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.