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.
The court got "into the realm of partisan politics" in the 2000 election when they stopped the vote counting in Florida, didn't they?
They knew then, that whichever way they decided, it was going to be unpopular, but they did their job and settled the question.
But this should at least put to rest the notion that Vattel was just some obscure Swiss philosopher.
Agreed! :)
nonsense.
The article says they follow the election. It doesn't say the elections affect how they rule.
Are you running for President or planning to be Vice President? If not, you’re fine. Those are the only 2 that require you to be a natural born citizen.
Then you may wish to review Hawaii’s statutes as far as being able to bestow US Citizenship upon a one’s child. According to the laws on the books in 1961 Stanley Ann does not qualify to bestow such on Barack. SO, if you want to go that route you’re going to have an ever harder time proving he’s even a legal citizen of the US!
Baldwin, Abraham, delegate from Georgia, attendance of, at Convention,
favors disqualification of foreigners, II, 272
Foreign Influence and Presidential Eligibility
Evidence from the period right after the Constitutional Convention also supports the notion that the Founding Fathers were very concerned about foreign influence on the federal government, and in particular on the President.
The most direct evidence comes from a statement made by Charles Pinckney to the U.S. Senate in 1800. Pinckney had been a delegate to the Constitutional Convention and, on July 26, 1787, had been the first delegate to raise the issue of presidential qualifications in the debate. On March 25, 1800, the Senate was debating a bill “prescribing the mode of deciding disputed elections of President and Vice President of the United States.”(54) Pinckney gave a detailed explanation for the Electoral College, emphasizing that the rules governing the Electoral College were designed so “as to make it impossible ... for improper domestic, or, what is of much more consequence, foreign influence and gold to interfere.”(55) Pinckney then made the only documented statement by one of the Founders connecting the Electoral College and the presidential eligibility clause. The Founders “knew well,” he said
that to give to the members of Congress a right to give votes in this election, or to decide upon them when given, was to destroy the independence of the Executive, and make him the creature of the Legislature. This therefore they have guarded against, and to insure experience and attachment to the country, they have determined that no man who is not a natural born citizen, or citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, of fourteen years residence, and thirty-five years of age, shall be eligible....(56)
This statement by one of the Founders, thirteen years after the Constitutional Convention, therefore supports the interpretation, given earlier, that the Electoral College and the presidential eligibility clause were intended primarily as the two sides of a plan to protect the President from foreign influence.
I didn’t say that the SCOTUS was detached or incurious, just that their duties required them to interpret law impartially - without regard to popular sentiment. Whether they actually accomplish that is another debate altogether.
I know.. It astounds me as well, frankly. I’d love to know how these folks graduated High School without passing the Constitution Test because clearly they couldn’t have passed it with these insane ideas as answers on that test.
Roger that!
it doesn’t. Vattel has no legal force.
The only thing that matters is what laws defined a natural born citizen in 1961.
Wut?
In ‘61 there was some verbiage that stated the mom had to have attained an age of 18? instead of 21 to secure American Citizenship for her child.... Dunham didn’t make it, if I recall correctly.
It has nothing to do with partisan politics. It has to do with this simple question:
Is the USA a nation of laws or not?
Everyone here would feel just the same if it was a Republican president with a foreign father, who was hiding every scrap of documentation of his citizenship history (and every other aspect of his life).
Exactly the same,
Partisan politics - no freaking way. It’s about the rule of law.
Hey, give him a break, he’s just paid minimum wage to refute things on the internet that are detrimental to Obongo.
Jay, John, writes to Washington suggesting restriction on admission of foreigners, III, 61; letter of Washington to, III, 76.
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.