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

To: Mr Rogers

The founders and framers were fluent in French which was the diplomatic language of those times. And the French became our allies against the British. The framers had access to the French version and knew what the word “naturels” meant when written by Vattel, as the word “naturels” was translated to natural born in diplomatic correspondence prior to the framing of the U.S. Constitution. Vattel clearly defined what his words meant. You Obot trolls are the ones trying to change the meaning of the language in our U.S. Constitution. See this link for all the attempts by establishment type Dems and Repubs to redefine the Natural Law term “natural born Citizen” and the Supreme Court cases in which “natural born Citizen” is discussed. The U.S. Supreme Court has never ever held that a “natural born Citizen” was anything else but a person born in the country to parents who are both its citizens: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html Also see: https://www.scribd.com/lists/3224507/Vattel-s-Influence-on-U-S-Founders-Constitution-s-Framers


71 posted on 01/17/2019 11:40:30 AM PST by CDR Kerchner (natural born Citizen, natural law, Emer de Vattel, naturels, presidential, eligibility, kamalaharris)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies ]


To: CDR Kerchner

“You Obot trolls”

Blow it out your butt, weirdo. BTW - it was “naturels sujet” IIRC that was translated NBS...or NBC for the US.

Vattel WAS precise, but YOU are a liar who deliberately distorts what he wrote. You have LIED about what Minor said.

“The U.S. Supreme Court has never ever held that a “natural born Citizen” was anything else but a person born in the country to parents who are both its citizens”

The US Supreme Court has never held ANYTHING regarding the exact meaning of NBC. However, they did say NBC’s meaning was rooted in the common law meaning of natural born subject. In Wong Kim Ark, as you know, they wrote approvingly:

“In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”

To repeat for emphasis:

“We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”

This was also cited in Wong Kim Ark, with full approval:

“Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign State; . . . British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen; . . . and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State. . . . The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.”

They then wrote: “That all children born within the dominion of the United States of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office became citizens at the time of their birth does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than fifty years after the adoption of the Constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the Court of Chancery of New York and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship. Lynch v. Clark, (1844) 1 Sandf.Ch. 583.”

Please note these cases and many more were examined up to 200 years BEFORE Obama.

In the same decision they quoted, with approval, Kent’s commentary, written in 1826:

“And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”

When the US Supreme Court cites a previous decision, state or federal, with approval, it is taken seriously. It is NOT a “holding”. That term is very restricted in meaning. But the dicta of a Supreme Court majority opinion, one that has been cited many times in the over 100 years since, carries weight.

You have NO LEGAL BASIS for your blathering, and your stupidity since 2008 has become an embarrassment. If any precedent is needed, it is this: Like it or not, Barack Obama WAS President of the USA from Jan 2009 - Jan 2017.


76 posted on 01/17/2019 7:05:14 PM PST by Mr Rogers (Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies ]

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