'Sanctions' sought in President's Eligibility case

WorldNet Daily ^ | Feb. 13, 2009 | Bob Unruh

[SvenMagnussen]

A high-powered team of Los Angeles attorneys representing President Obama in his effort to keep his birth certificate, college records and passport documents concealed from the public has suggested there should be "monetary sanctions" against a lawyer whose clients have brought a complaint alleging Obama doesn't qualify for the Oval Office under the Constitution's demand for a "natural born" citizen in that post.

The suggestion came in an exchange of e-mails and documents in a case brought by former presidential candidate Alan Keyes and others in California. The case originally sought to have the state's electors ordered to withhold their votes for Obama until his eligibility was established. Since his inauguration, it has been amended to seek a future requirement for a vetting process, in addition to the still-sought unveiling of Obama's records.

[BP2]

Where is that book highlighted from?

Why that would be from Vattel’s Law of Nations!

Note Vattel's use of the words "parents" and "citizens" above. Undoubtedly a problem for BHO when you consider Fight the Smears has pointed out that BHO's father was a UK subject and later a Kenya Citizen, as was BHO at birth.

We keep having the trolls come on and say that “Natural Born Citizen” is not defined in the Constitution. Neither are many words and phrases, like "HE" (See post #108), but the Framers universally knew what NBC meant. John Jay, who made the most-notable reference to George Washington on NBC, was also the first Chief Justice. He kept a copy on his desk. So did Madison. So did many, many other Framers. The Senate also purchase Law of Nations for official use in 1794 (see below).

To demonstrate the importance and weight that Vattel’s Law of Nations played in the formation of our Nation in the first years, there are many references, but I'll cite Thomas Lee's (University of Chicago Law) essay, “The Safe-Conduct Theory of the Alien Tort Statute”:

But before turning to the Act [“Alien Tort Act”], it is necessary to identify one other crucial source, which was the founding group’s primary reference for international law issues such as the scope and nature of the safe conduct and the obligations and duties of neutral sovereigns. On Monday, March 10, 1794, during the height of young Republic’s neutrality crisis, the Senate ordered: “That the Secretary purchase Blackstone’s Commentaries, and Vattel’s Law of Nature and Nations, for the use of the Senate.” The purchase order—the first books the Senate bought (and the only ones it apparently ordered in the eighteenth century)—gives us insight not only into the reference books the members of the First Congress likely consulted for issues relating to the ATS, but also signifies the omnipresent, omnipotent dual influence—sometimes complementary as with the ATS, at other times pointing in different directions— of English common law (represented by Blackstone) and continental “public” law (represented by Vattel) on the founding group.

The treatise by the Swiss thinker Emmerich de Vattel entitled The Law of Nations or Principles of the Law of Nature Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns was the supremus inter pares of the international law texts the founding group used during the crucial decade between 1787 and 1797. The Founders also read and cited other leading authorities, most notable Hugo Grotius and Samuel Pufendorf, but Vattel was their clear favorite.

Vattel’s work was first published in French in 1758, with the first English translation published in London in 1759. By 1787, there was another English edition and eight more French editions. The first American edition was published in New York in 1796. Vattel’s treatise, according to Benjamin Franklin as early as 1775, was “continually in the hands of the members of our Congress now sitting.” The book was especially treasured for its directions on how the young Republic should conduct its foreign affairs. At one cabinet meeting in April 1793, Alexander Hamilton cited Vattel for the proposition that the United States could unilaterally revoke its treaty of alliance with France given the dramatic upheaval in that country. “Jefferson was not swayed by the citation, but it did cause Edmund Randolph, the attorney general, to reconsider his opposition to Hamilton’s proposal. Unfortunately, a copy of Vattel’s was not available at the moment, and so the meeting adjourned” until a copy could be located.

So when I hear people come on FR and say that Vattel doesn't matter in the context of defining "Natural Born Citizen," they quite frankly have NO IDEA of what they're talking about.

[DAVEY CROCKETT]

After looking into this for over six months I am still left with more questions than answers and a lot of holes to fill.

We have no idea how bad this really is. This has been planed for a long long time. We really don't know who his mother or father are. All we may really know is Obama lived with the Dunhams. Maybe we don't even know that.

[Quix]

INDEED.

RIGHT YOU ARE.

HORRIFIC.

[Chief Engineer]

Seeing pictures of Jr side by side with Stanley Armour Dunham there is no doubt in my mind that the two are related. Jr is more white than he would care to admit. I just found the mention by Susan Blake of the letter she received in early spring from Ann saying Ann was getting married and will post the link here. One big problem is that the presstitutes took Jr at his word and used his “fairytale” as a guideline which accounts for such stories as his father left when he was two and his father returned to Kenya in 1965. Too bad the presstitutes didn’t do their jobs!

http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2008/01/14/tidbits2.html

[BonRad]

I was going to ask same thing- exactly what the yellow highlighted paste-in thing was.

You are doing great BP2! Sure I’m sounding like a cheerleader but you are really doing great work and people are paying attention. Just wish I had more attention to give to these remarkable posts you and several others are making, particularly in this thread and a couple recent ones. Focusing like a laser, then stepping back with patient explanations.

Anyone coming in with healthy honest curiosity should be staggered, at least.

So many history lessons of the finest order it is beyond words, at least to this sophomore here.

[Michael Michael]

This is from Chapter IV, Sec 17 of what you sent me that you said was the Hague convention.

What you quote here is the text from Article 17 of the Hague convention on INTERNATIONAL ADOPTIONS. What I cited, was the Hague convention on NATIONALITY. The Hague convention on INTERNATIONAL ADOPTION says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING regarding the nationality or citizenship of adopted children.

Let's go back to the beginning.

Here's what you wrote:

The US is a signatory to the Hague Convention’s standards for international adoption, and those rules do allow the legal parents and guardians to renounce any former citizenship of a custodial minor.

That's absolutely INCORRECT.

There is absolutely NOTHING in the Hague convention on international adoption concerning nationality or citizenship. NOTHING. I previously provided you a link to the full text of the Hague convention on international adoption, and you will not find a single instance regarding nationality or citizenship.

What governs nationality is the Hague convention on nationality. And with regard to nationality and adoption, it clearly says that a child may lose their nationality due to adoption ONLY OF THE STATE THE CHILD IS BEING ADOPTED FROM ALLOWS A CHILD TO LOSE THEIR NATIONALITY DUE TO ADOPTION.

The United States, under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, had NO PROVISION FOR A CHILD TO LOSE THEIR US CITIZENSHIP DUE TO ADOPTION.

So let's summarize.

1. The Hague convention on international adoption says absolutely nothing regarding a child losing their citizenship as a result of being adopted.

2. The Hague convention on nationality says that a child may lose their citizenship as a result of adoption if the state the child is being adopted from recognizes loss of nationality due to adoption. If it does not, then the child cannot lose their nationality as a result of adoption.

3. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 contains no provision for a child losing their US citizenship as a result of being adopted.

You get it now?

It means that even if Obama were adopted, he COULD NOT have lost his US citizenship.

[TruthWillWin]

The face and expression on the first and third photo is very similar but still not exactly the same. The second is very different.

Have you seen any pictures of Stanley with that look that could have been used for the photoshop? I can't recall any. I'm not so sure it is a photoshop.

[little jeremiah]

I agree with everything you said.

Except you may be a sophomore, I’m a first grader. I need the explanations explained.

[Michael Michael]

“If the law of a State recognises that its nationality may be lost as the result of adoption, this loss shall be conditional upon the acquisition by the person adopted of the nationality of the person by whom he is adopted, under the law of the State of which the latter is a national relating to the effect of adoption upon nationality.”

Please reread this VERY carefully. Parse EACH word precisely and contextually. You will see that it argues FOR Soetero Sr. to renounce Hussein’s US citizenship so that he could assume Barry Soetero Srs. citizenship and reside in Indonesia with him.

I have read it VERY carefully.

What you don't seem to be able to understand is that one needn't read any further than this:

If the law of a State recognizes that its nationality may be lost as the result of adoption

The United States DID NOT recognize that US nationality may be lost as a result of adoption. This being the case, nothing following what was quoted above is relevant. That's because what follows is conditional (note the word "if") on the US recognizing the loss of nationality as a result of adoption.

Get it? If x, then y. If not x, then not y. Or as the Chinese used to say, no tickee, no laundry.

[DMZFrank]

OK, lets go to a couurt of law and test all this. Hussein probably WAS adopted. Indonesian law said that he can’t have dual citizenship if he resided there for as long as he did, buty he did reside there. YOU say US Immigration law forbids him losing his citizenship by adoption. Haul out his BC, and argue it in a court of law. I say enough doubt exists for a judicial precedent to be established. None of this has ever happened before. We deserve to have precedent established. But again you don’t feel that it is necessary to see the evidence that establishes whether or not he was ever granted INDONESIAN citizenship. If he had been, than he CANNOT be a natural born citizen, especially after having been BORN a British citizen, and a Kenyan citizen, and a a US citizen.

[Michael Michael]

So when I hear people come on FR and say that Vattel doesn't matter in the context of defining "Natural Born Citizen," they quite frankly have NO IDEA of what they're talking about.

De Vattel didn't matter in the context of defining "natural born citizen." What you don't seem to understand is that de Vattel was writing about INTERNATIONAL LAW. That's what "Law of Nations" means. INTERNATIONAL LAW.

Good God! Read your own quotes for crying out loud!

But before turning to the Act [“Alien Tort Act”], it is necessary to identify one other crucial source, which was the founding group’s primary reference for international law issues such as the scope and nature of the safe conduct and the obligations and duties of neutral sovereigns

And:

The book was especially treasured for its directions on how the young Republic should conduct its foreign affairs

And:

The treatise by the Swiss thinker Emmerich de Vattel entitled The Law of Nations or Principles of the Law of Nature Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns was the supremus inter pares of the international law texts the founding group used during the crucial decade between 1787 and 797.

And:

The book was especially treasured for its directions on how the young Republic should conduct its foreign affairs.

And:

At one cabinet meeting in April 1793, Alexander Hamilton cited Vattel for the proposition that the United States could unilaterally revoke its treaty of alliance with France given the dramatic upheaval in that country.

Please, tell us how a treaties on INTERNATIONAL LAW is to have particularly informed this country with regard to its own CIVIL LAW?

Here, try this on for size. This is Rep. Wilson, speaking of the citizenship clause of the Civil Rights Act of 1866:

The first section of the bill contains the following declaration of citizenship:

That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign Power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United STates without distinction of color.

This provision, I maintain, is merely declaratory of what the law now is. This, I presume would not be disputed if the language were qualified by the presence of the word "white." In the absence of this word, I am sure that my proposition will be disputed by every member of the House who believes that this government is excluively a "white man's Government." I think this question of sufficient importance to justify me giving it something more than a mere passing notice.

Blackstone says:

"The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the domnion of the Crown of England; that is, within the ligeance, or, as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens are those as as born out of it." --Sharwood's Blackstone, vol. 1, p. 364.

The principle here laid down applies to this country as well as to England. It makes a man a subject of England, and a citizen here, and is, as Blackstone declares, "founded in reason and the nature of government."

The English law made no distinction on account of race or color in declaring that all persons born within its jurisdiction are natural-born subjects; nor does it do so in regard to naturalization. This law bound the colonies before the Revolution, and was not changed afterward.

The Constitution of the United States recognizes the division of the people into the two classes named by Blackstone--natural-born and naturalized citizens. It speaks of "natural-born" citizens and also provides for the establishment of "a uniform rule of naturalization by Congress.

But it really doesn't matter, because ALL CITIZENSHIP of the United States is defined by the Fourteenth Amendment.

[DMZFrank]

“But it really doesn’t matter, because ALL CITIZENSHIP of the United States is defined by the Fourteenth Amendment.”

The XIV amendment sets the minimum standard for all citzens so that their baseline citizenship rights may not be abridged within the borders of any state, and too ensure the equal protection of the law. It specifies two classes of citizens, “naturalized” and “citzens.’

Nothing therin modified the distiction of “natural born” or the Artice II, Section 1 clause 5 qualifications to be “natural born.”

I think that even you would concede that the class of citizen called “native born” in the Kim Wong Ark decision or a “naturalized” citizen is not constitutionally eligible for POTUS.

[Michael Michael]

OK, lets go to a couurt of law and test all this.

Why does one need to go to a court of law to test something which requires nothing more than the ability to read and comprehend simple English just a bit above the elementary school level and possess just moderate critical thinking skills?

Is this truly too much for you to grasp?

Indonesian law said that he can’t have dual citizenship if he resided there for as long as he did, buty he did reside there.

So what? Since there was no provision under US law for him to have lost his US citizenship as a child, then either you're misunderstanding Indonesian law, or he was there illegally. Take your pick.

YOU say US Immigration law forbids him losing his citizenship by adoption.

What I said was, there was no provision under US NATIONALITY law allowing for the loss of his US citizenship as the result of adoption. It's US NATIONALITY law which covers the NATIONALITY of US citizens.

Haul out his BC, and argue it in a court of law.

Why does anything have to be hauled before a court? Just show me the provision in INA 1952 which would have allowed him to lose his US citizenship as the result of adoption. There's not even any such provision in the current INA.

Here, read it for yourself and tell me if you see any means by which one can lose their US citizenship as the result of adoption:

Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizens

However there is one portion of the current INA you might be interested in, 18 USC 1481(b):

Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

In other words, for those who are claiming Obama isn't a citizen, the burden is on them to show that he is not.

[Michael Michael]

The XIV amendment sets the minimum standard for all citzens so that their baseline citizenship rights may not be abridged within the borders of any state, and too ensure the equal protection of the law. It specifies two classes of citizens, “naturalized” and “citzens.’

No, it does not. The Fourteenth Amendment establishes the ONLY citizenship that exists in the United States. If you are not a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment, you're not a citizen at all. Period.

Nothing therin modified the distiction of “natural born” or the Artice II, Section 1 clause 5 qualifications to be “natural born.”

Article II is not and never was any sort of ESTABLISHMENT of citizenship. It only made reference to citizenship by birth. And Congress had absolutely no power whatsoever to declare or define who was a citizen by birth. That was left entirely up to the states. It wasn't until the Fourteenth Amendment that citizenship by birth was defined by the federal government.

Oh yeah, and you know that guy Bingham you keep talking about? You know WHY he's considered the "father of the Fourteenth Amendment"? Because he's the one who argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (which everyone quotes him talking about), WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

Why? Because, he argued, Congress had no constitutional authority to declare who was a citizen by birth. And that the only way for Congress to have any say over who was a citizen by birth was by amending the Constitution.

I think that even you would concede that the class of citizen called “native born” in the Kim Wong Ark decision or a “naturalized” citizen is not constitutionally eligible for POTUS.

"Native born" and "natural born" are used interchangeably in Ark. However I will certainly concede that a naturalized citizen is not constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President. That's because a naturalized citizen is not a citizen by birth.

[DMZFrank]

“In other words, for those who are claiming Obama isn’t a citizen, the burden is on them to show that he is not.”

If we have the burden, then he shouldn’t be allowed to block access to the evidence that most likely proves our case.

“What I said was, there was no provision under US NATIONALITY law allowing for the loss of his US citizenship as the result of adoption. It’s US NATIONALITY law which covers the NATIONALITY of US citizens”.

There is also a provision of 42 USC, Ch 143 which says

C) a declaration by the central authority (or other
competent authority) of such other Convention country -
(i) that the child will be permitted to enter and reside
permanently, or on the same basis as the adopting parent, in
the receiving country; and
(ii) that the central authority (or other competent
authority) of such other Convention country consents to the
adoption, if such consent is necessary under the laws of such
country for the adoption to become final.

The Act of 1952 doesn’t specifically forbid loss of citizenship by adoption but does seem to allow for a framework of negotiation in the “best interests of the child” when all of the statutory law is considered and when adoption is decided.

You really are afraid of what that BC will reveal, aren’t you????

[DMZFrank]

“Why does one need to go to a court of law to test something which requires nothing more than the ability to read and comprehend simple English just a bit above the elementary school level and possess just moderate critical thinking skills?”

When i think of all the absurd lawsuits granted cert in federal courts over the last 20 years, I just wanna LOL. Suits over some minnow living in a mud hole or some idiot dog of a feminist claiming her feelings were hurt by too many attractive women being extolled, ad nauseum, I have to laugh out loud.

Our case is much stronger than any of the fringe lefties nutcase suits. It is SCREAMING for a precedental ruling, and to allay the valid suspicions that a lying usurper is POTUS.

[Michael Michael]

If we have the burden, then he shouldn’t be allowed to block access to the evidence that most likely proves our case.

Quite the contrary. Again, the burden is on you, not him. If you don't already have the evidence, then all you have is speculation, and by definition haven't met your burden of proof. That's the whole reason for that statute. So you can't just say you suspect so-and-so might not be a citizen and cause their privacy rights to be infringed.

There is also a provision of 42 USC, Ch 143 which says

C) a declaration by the central authority (or other competent authority) of such other Convention country -
(i) that the child will be permitted to enter and reside permanently, or on the same basis as the adopting parent, in the receiving country; and
(ii) that the central authority (or other competent authority) of such other Convention country consents to the adoption, if such consent is necessary under the laws of such country for the adoption to become final.

Would you care to point where in that statute it says anything about nationality or citizenship? Because I don't see it anywhere. And if you're going to argue that "reside" has something to do with nationality, well, just don't. I still have some doubts as to whether or not you're a complete buffoon. I wouldn't want you to spoil it.

The Act of 1952 doesn’t specifically forbid loss of citizenship by adoption but...

Now you're arguing like a liberal when they're trying to justify the federal government getting involved in things it's not constitutionally empowered to get involved with.

"Duuuhhh, well, it doesn't specifically say it can't. Nope, nope, nope." (in my best Buzzy Buzzard voice).

Look, it's real simple, just like the Constitution.

Constitution says the federal government can only do a, b, and c. You can't argue that it can do d because it doesn't specifically say it can't do d. It can't do d because it's only empowered to do a, b, and c.

Similarly, INA 1952 says you can only lose your US citizenship by way of a, b, and c. You can't argue that you can lose your US citizenship by d because it doesn't specifically say you can't lose it by d. You can't lose it by d because you can only lose it by a, b, and c.

Got it? I hope so. Because I've wasted a lot of time over the years trying to get that seemingly simple concept through some peoples' skulls and I don't wish to waste any more.

You really are afraid of what that BC will reveal, aren’t you????

Afraid? No. To be afraid, I'd first have to care.

[jersey117]

BTTT

[autumnraine]

Brilliant work and I am thankful for it!

Please keep it up!

I am doing all I can in my little neck of the woods. Correcting newspaper articles as I come across them, or people who are being quoted.

Most ignore me, but some have a little tingle of pride of being ‘correct’ over protecting Obama and will respond when I correct them on something like “His mother was a citizen, so it doesn’t matter where he was born”. Most have no idea of the difference between “Citizen” and “Natural born citizen”.

[Calpernia]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2148074/posts
Emmerich de Vattel’s The Law of Nations