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.
“...telling the majority of people who voted in the presidential election that their vote does not count...
Guess what, genius, there vote doesn’t count!”
Well, I’m not officially a genius, but I appreciate that at least you think I am. Nonetheless, I feel I have to tell you that a lot of people think that their votes do count in a presidential election.
Did you ever hear of the 2000 presidential election? It was a long time ago, and you probably were too young to remember, but it came down to how the votes were counted in Florida.
The Republicans and the Democrats both hired the best lawyers in America and went to SCOTUS to get a ruling on how to proceed. SCOTUS said that it didn’t matter because the popular vote didn’t count. HAHAHA!!! No, I’m only kidding.
Actually, the Supreme Court and the Dems and the Repubs all thought that the popular vote in Florida mattered. Too bad they didn’t have you there to straighten them out!!!
” ...various writers at the time interpreted it differently.”
Which writers at the time, and which participants in the drafting and adoption of the Constitution, interpreted ‘natural born’ differently than Vattel?
It seems to me that had any of the drafters had a different interpretation, it would have been the subject of debate. As it is, it appears there was a common understanding among these learned men, and thus no need for debate, but simply to adopt the language.
I figured you meant any old next door neighbors of anyone.
Neighbors could be anyone and everyone. So you want only highly qualified qualified neighbors.
What are the qualifiecations for neighbors to know what is a natural born citizen?
yes, I know that’s where the Cheney’s are ‘from’ and he also served as Congressman from WY. But in ‘00 he was a resident of Texas, and because of the Constitutional requirement, he moved back to Wyoming so he’d be qualified to run as VP.
Of course, post-Obama, he probably wouldn’t have had to bother with pesky Constitutional requirements.
“With all due respect, I disagree with your premise of overturning the popular will. The job of the USSC is to interpret the meaning and intent of our laws, as they are written and intended in spirit. Their job does not include entertaining popular will.”
Yes, you are right, but don’t you think that the Court has to maintain the respect and support of the American people as an impartial administrator of justice? Certainly the Court is aware of the implications of a controversial, unpopular decision on its ability to function effectively.
Overturning a presidential election would seriously strain its respect and support, unless the law or the constitution were very clear about the matter in question. For instance, if the president-elect were only 27 years old, I don’t think they would have much of a problem intervening.
U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875
Elliot's Debates, Volume 4; Page 195-196 Mr. Iredell:
No man but a native, or who has resided fourteen years in America, can be chosen President... A native of America must have very singular good fortune...
There was NO room for DUAL or Foreign citizenship derived at birth after the grandfather clause ran its course until the very 1st ‘natural born became eligible. A president must have a very “SINGULAR” good fortune aka born owing allegiance ONLY to the USA.
You should go join their forum, it better suits your I.Q.
Remarkable job, FRiend, heck of a thread too.
I am really in awe of the work and research that is done here, truly amazing not to mention so educational.
Thank you!
“...but don’t you think that the Court has to maintain the respect and support of the American people as an impartial administrator of justice?”
I do see your point however, it isn’t a function of the USSC to maintain the respect and support of Americans. Whatever popular sentiment may be, at any given time, has no place in the Court’s deliberations nor in their opinions issued.
In order for the USSC to remain an impartial arbitor of justice their function must focus solely on the interpretation of our laws, as they are written and intended in spirit, and issue rulings on those interpretations.
If popular sentiment is allowed a role in the justices interpretations and rulings, the purpose and function of our High Court is effectivley tainted. Thus the Court would no longer serve its Constitutional intent and purpose.
Severe Thunderstorm Power Outage Bookmark....
I also believe that SCOTUS is unable to jump into the rink for deciding qualifications of the president or to perform any impeachment proceedings. This falls squarely on Congress where they are to determine by 2/3 vote whether a President should be impeached.
The House of Representatives if I recall correctly should be the first to start these proceedings then it would go to the Senate. They all did not do their job. It still could be done, but unfortunately they are all corrupt!
Anyone who thinks our Republic is a Democracy set up to elect Presidents by 'popular opinion' needs to change his handle from freethinker_for_freedom to freethinker_for_freedom tyranny
After having thought about this for a while, I wonder whether under the constitution the US Supreme Court has jurisdiction to consider the removal of a sitting US president. It seems that under Article Two, Section 4 a president can only be removed by impeachment.
natural born citizen isn’t specifically defined in the constitution. What matters is what laws and what court decisions spelled out how that was interpreted in 1961.
Even if the Supreme Court today now said that Vattel is the standard, they can’t apply it retroactively and remove citizenship from people. All the anchor babies born in 2008 would still technically be natural born citizens, for example.
I have to agree with you. I don’t think the supreme court would have jurisdiction to hear a case that would result in the removal of a sitting president. He would have to be impeached.
What’s significant of not so significant about 1961
“That’s why Cheney relocated to Montana.”
Dick Chaney was born, raised, and has always had a ranch in Wyoming. His political career started with being elected to the US House of Representatives from Wyoming...
Although Cheney was employed by Haliburton in Texas, I believe that he has always considered Wyoming his home....and has always maintained a residence/residency there....
The term ‘Natural Born Citizen’ was first defined in “Law of Nations”:
Not entirely true, NBC has it’s roots in Roman law.... Vittal redefined the term Natural Born Citizen for his era (1758), and Vittals definition is the one used by the Founders in writting the Constitutional requirements for the Office of the President....
“I do see your point however, it isn’t a function of the USSC to maintain the respect and support of Americans. Whatever popular sentiment may be, at any given time, has no place in the Court’s deliberations nor in their opinions issued.”
I think you are right, and this is the way the court should theoretically function. I just feel like the Court in fact does tend to avoid deciding cases that it considers too controversial. But having thought about this particular question, I wonder whether the Supreme Court has a built-in way of avoiding a decision on Obama’s meeting the qualifications for a US president. It seems to me that the Court would say that the proper forum for removal of a sitting president is the impeachment process, and refuse to hear the matter.
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.