Posted on 08/08/2009 12:50:30 PM PDT by plenipotentiary
The Congrees shall have power: To define and punish .....Offences against the Law of Nations.
The LAW OF NATIONS is capitalised, so it is referring to the book by Vattel which says that the President should be born in the USA of (two) Parents who were US Citizens.
(Excerpt) Read more at senate.gov ...
Does it say that the two American Citizen parents have to be native born?
Was not Obama’s father a naturalized citizen?
That would be a no, he was not. He wasn't even a resident alien. He was a citizen of the CUKC, which made him British, and by virtue of The British Nationality Act Of 1948, his son was not only born a British citizen as well, but he remains a British subject, no matter what citizenship he holds, to this day.
You are incorrect as the marriage was Void Ab Initio. They had different standards for babies born of a VOID marriage.
Furthermore, Elg defined natural born citizen as born on US soil to one naturalized parent and one foreign parent.
No he didn’t. Provide a quote.
I am not sure what you are referencing..but Elg certainly does define it. Go read the case.
No. Your assertion, you provide the quote.
You're still prattling with the fancy Latin for mere speculation on your part, ignoring the candidate and now President, with his own admissions upon information and belief, as well as facts in evidence regarding the legality of marriage represented by the divorce decree having been granted.
And, insofar as Elg is concerned, you misconstrue again and ignore the relevant finding that Miss Elg was found to have been born on US soil of two citizen parents, due to 1907 law concerning derivative citizenship. Both her parents were US citizens under the law at the time, because her mother legally derived her citizenship from her husband, who was a US citizen and legally the father of Miss Elg.
But, if you want to continue prattling about marriage pertaining to Obama's eligibility or the lack of it, why don't you exhibit a little creativity and intelligence through linkage of conceptual notions across jurisdictions, and see about the pertinence of the Elg precedent, regarding Kenyan marriages, since you're so convinced that theirs was a legally recognized, tribal marriage performed in Kenya. Stanley Ann Dunham/Obama very well could have become Kenyan herself.
How 'bout them apples, lol.
And, futhermore, looking at the odd racial categorization of Obama as "African" rather than negro or colored as would have been the case in the United States in 1961, I've seen purported, birth-related vital documents from other UKC citizens at birth, with a racial categorization of "European" rather than white or caucasian. That should be intriguing, for even the marginally curious such as yourself. With Hawaiian statute allowing the issuance of birth documentation for even the foreign-born, this very well could indicate a Kenyan root document for the purported "COLB" generated from diverse, birth-related vital records on file in Hawaii.
Chew on that for a while, RummyChick.
You've annoyed me long enough, with your abrasive yet baseless contentions.
It's your turn now.
I agree with RegulatorCountry. You are engaging in meaningless and uninformed prattle.
I fear you are over your head.
You may be right...The issue of Elg’s mother didn’t come up until after Elg was born and the mother went back to Sweden. On this I may have to concede.
A divorce does not mean that the marriage was not VOID AT INCEPTION. Show me the law that states that.
I think immigration would have a thing or two to say about bigasmists using that as an excuse for their misdeeds..hey we got a divorce so that means our marriage was valid...
I fear you are misleading on purpose.
Show me ANYTHING in UK law that indicates a divorce makes a VOID marriage valid under their immigration law.
Start here with your research.
Sorry, Charlie. They are NOT referring to a book title. The Constitution is loaded with capitalized words that have nothing to do with the title of anything.
It also says that it is the duty of government to establish a national religion. When we going to get around to that?
Hmm, now where might that have come from ... Blackstone and English common law, lol?
If you want to know what the Founders meant by the "Law of Nations" you need to look at the book that most of the Founders learned their law from: William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England.
Blackstone speaks of the law of nations twice, in the Introduction, Section II, p. 43:
However, as it is impossible for the whole race of mankind to be united in one great society, they must necessarily divide into many; and form separate states, commonwealths, and nations; entirely independent of each other, and yet liable to a mutual intercourse. Hence arises a third kind of law to regulate this mutual intercourse, called "the law of nations;" which, as none of these states will acknowledge a superiority in the other, cannot be dictated by either; but depends entirely upon the rules of natural law, or upon mutual compacts, treaties, leagues, and agreements between these several communities: in the construction also of which compacts we have no other rule to resort to, but the law of nature; being the only one to which both communities are equally subject: and therefore the civil law [N.B. law systems based on Roman law, not the common law - a footnote here references Puffendorf] very justly observes, that quod naturalis ratio inter omnes homines constituit, vocatur jus gentium.
and in Book IV, Chapter 5, p. 66-67:
The law of nations is a system of rules, deducible by natural reason, and established by universal consent among the civilized inhabitants of the world[Emphasis added]; in order to decide all disputes, to regulate all ceremonies and civilities, and to insure the observance of justice and good faith, in that intercourse which must frequently occur between two or more independent states, and the individuals belonging to each. This general law is founded upon this principle, that different nations ought in time of peace to do one another all the good they can; and, in time of war, as little harm as possible, without prejudice to their own real interests. And, as none of these states will allow a superiority in the other, therefore neither can dictate or prescribe the rules of this law to the rest; but such rules must necessarily result from those principles of natural justice, in which all the learned of every nation agree: or they depend upon mutual compacts or treaties between the respective communities; in the construction of which there is also no judge to resort to, but the law of nature and reason, being the only one in which all the contracting parties are equally conversant, and to which they are equally subject.
Really, any suggestion that that the Founders understood anything else by the "Law of Nations" is nonsense.
The Congress shall have Power…To define and punish… Offenses against the Law of Nations.
Does that make The Law of Nations part of the Constitution?
Already happened, gradually, in the sixties, with a slow, intentional abrogation of the Establishment Clause. The state religion is Secular Humanist, anti-theist at it's core, but with odd, animist aspects tacked on, regarding apparent sentience of the planet itself.
Complete rubbish. All the evidence shows that the Founders were very well aware of Vattels Law of Nations, and that was indeed what they referred to in the Constitution.
If the Founders were indeed referring to Vattel's book then why the authorization to "define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations..." What was there to define? All they had to do was read Vattel's book.
James Wilson, in a lecture on the Constitution, said, "The law of nature, when applied to states or political societies, receives a new name, that of the law of nations." What the founders are obviously referring to in the Constitution is that basic set of lawful behavior recognized by all civilized countries.
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.