Posted on 04/23/2010 6:18:25 PM PDT by bushpilot1
Obama's supporters state there is no record the Founders used Vattel.
The second page shows the addition natural born citizen in 1787, the third page references Vattel.
link not working
lang;(d)rang; 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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.
Rodgers is in panic mode.
I wanna see his head explode!
The citation is related to pages nearly 200 pages out from those dealing with the Article II issue in question. Considering the scope of Vattel’s work, it would be like expecting an arrow shot over a roof to hit it’s target to expect that these citations deal with this one subject. Still, perhaps they do. You don’t have the pages cited?
I wanna see his head explode!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2498583/hposts?page=219#219
To be crystal clear, “natural born citizen” would need to be defined in the constitution. Many, if not most, Americans would feel like anyone born in the US to a US citizen mother would be a “natural born citizen” absent some definition to the contrary in the constitution itself.
For the Supreme Court to say that because this fellow Vattel in his writings defined “natural born citizen” in a certain way, we are bound to follow that definition and overturn the popular vote would be to put the Supreme Court into the realm of partisan politics in a way that neither it nor the republic could stand.
Check out the link to thread in post in 105.
What part of this thread aren’t you grasping???? The ‘RECORDS of the FEDERAL CONVENTION of 1787’ doesn’t even remotely ring a bell regarding the constitution???
Vattel defines “Natural Born Citizen”. Vattel is cited numerous times during this convention.
Hint: The Constitution was being written during this convention.
Our Republic is already in the realm of partisan politics by refusing to follow the constitution...we’re not only up in our necks in partisan politics we are losing our Republic and our freedom. They sure as hell better deal with this or they are committing treason along with everyone else in Congress.
Let me count the ways...waiter, bring me the menu!
To the SCOTUS ‘the popular vote’ doesn’t even exist. All that counts is who has a majority of the electors.
Even if the American people were proved beyond doubt that they had dedceived themselves in 2008, I am afraid they will have to vote for Obama in 2012 just to show that they don’t like being second-guessed by those who find the truth.
The late Senator Roman Hurska, R-NE, can be paraphrased here again: even traitors need representation!
born is different..does that mean underlined?
From where I’m sitting the traitors are the ONLY ones with representation....the rest of us are being told we’re terrorists and subversive.
“To the SCOTUS ‘the popular vote’ doesn’t even exist. All that counts is who has a majority of the electors.”
Don’t be naive.
In 2000, a professor echoed what most deductive souls here have long since accepted as the natural and highly wise protectiveness of this fragile nation by our courageous Founders and the original valiant US patriots.
~ ~ ~ ~
The Origins and Interpretation of the Presidential Eligibility Clause in the U.S. Constitution:
Why Did the Founding Fathers Want the President To Be a “Natural Born Citizen”
and
What Does this Clause Mean for Foreign-Born Adoptees?
by John Yinger(1)
Revised Version, April 6, 2000
*snip*
Regarding:
In this letter, dated July 25, 1787, (John) Jay wrote:
****************************************************
Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen (emphasis in the original).(5)
*****************************************************
###
There is a striking similarity between the words in Jay’s letter and in these statements at the Convention. Jay is concerned about “the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government.”
Madison worries that foreign powers will attempt “to have at the head of our Governmt a man attached to their respective politics and interests.” Apparently, however, this timing was nothing more than coincidence. In fact, Jay was in New York when he wrote the letter, engaged in other duties, and “he was still in the dark about the direction toward which that body was moving.”(12) Moreover, the letter was undoubtedly not delivered to Washington until days, if not weeks, after July 25.
In addition, Madison, backed up by Butler and Williamson, appears to be addressing a different issue than is Jay. After all, Madison’s comments focus on the method for electing the President, whereas Jay is concerned about the President’s, or at least the commander-in-chief’s, qualifications.
In fact, however, these two issues are inextricably linked in the Convention debate.
The Founding Fathers were very concerned about foreign influence and went to great lengths to design a government that would be insulated from it.
At first, they focused on finding a mechanism for electing the President that would minimize foreign influence. Indeed, even though the issue of Presidential qualifications was raised, as we will see, on July 26, the Convention did not turn to that issue in earnest until almost a month later, and it did not restrict eligibility to “natural born citizens” until it had dropped the idea that the Legislature should elect the President.
In other words, the Convention regarded Presidential qualifications as a secondary tool for limiting foreign influence, and the delegates put off the debate on this secondary tool until it had succeeded in designing a method for electing the President that could not be manipulated by foreign powers.
The next day, July 26, 1787, the Constitutional Convention returned to the issue of foreign influence on the Executive. Specifically, on that day George Mason moved “That the Committee of Detail be instructed to receive a clause requiring certain qualifications of landed property and citizenship of the United States in members of the legislature....”(13)
Because, at that point in the Convention, the Legislature was still expected to elect the President, this motion can be seen as a way to limit foreign influence on the Executive.
At this point, Charles Pinckney and Charles Cotesworth Pinckney “moved to insert by way of amendmt the words Judiciary & Executive so as to extend the qualifications to those departments which was agreed to nem. con.”(14) This is the first mention of presidential qualifications at the Convention.
It appears almost as an aside. Along with an amendment to strike out the word “landed,” it was incorporated into Mason’s motion and passed by the Convention.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Much more very worthwhile info continues here
http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/Citizenship/history.htm
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.