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.
use of the word subjects..
Note 1: 1 The original added: “and, in fine, to admit you into the full enjoyment of all the rights, liberties, privileges and immunities of free and natural born subjects of these States.”] 409
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:14:./temp/~ammem_HZ7v::
“The Oxford English Dictionary defines “natural born” as “[h]aving a specified position or character by birth.” 7 OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY 38 (1961) so in English the phrase refers to anyone who is a citizen from birth. There is no record of a debate on the requirements to meet the “natural born Citizen” qualification during the Constitutional Convention. This clause was introduced by the drafting Committee of Eleven, and then adopted without discussion by the Convention as a whole. One possible source of the clause can be traced to Alexander Hamilton, a delegate to the Convention. On June 18, 1787, Hamilton submitted to the Convention a sketch of a plan of government. Article IX, section 1 of Hamilton’s plan provided:
No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”[2]
Another possible source of the clause is a July 25, 1787 letter from John Jay to George Washington, presiding officer of the Convention. Jay wrote:
Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and 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.[3]”
From Wiki...maybe you can ask the birther lawyers to read their opposition BEFORE they are standing in court.
Done.
Ping, y'all...
How much is it that President George Washington still owes the library for not turning in “his” copy of Vattel???
post 85. 1. bottom of page They used natural born subjects.
It has nothing to do with being a citizen and partaking of the rights, prvileges and obligations of citizenship, above and beyond being a qualifyer of a certain type of citizen who is unencumbered by the possibility of claims by any other jurisdiction. You were born in the United States. Your mother is, I assume, a US citizen. You are a US citizen.
If your father was a naturalized citizen of the United States when you were born, you’re also a natural born citizen. You were born subject to the complete and whole jurisdiction of the United States and no other.
If your father was not a naturalized citizen of the United States when you were born, your being a natural born citizen is in doubt. The condition of citizenship descends from the father. He was subject to the jurisdiction of France, and you very well could have been as well, through jus sanguinis.
Your not being natural born would not affect your being a citizen. There are citizens by statute, naturalized citizens, citizens at birth in territories who are not natural born ... all of these have the same experience of citizenship in equality with every other form of citizenship, with the only exception being eligibility to hold office in the Executive Branch as President or Vice President. That is the only place it matters and in fact it’s the only place in the Constitution that the term even appears.
To overturn the popular vote, I think the Supreme Court would feel, for its own sake, that the law and the facts be crystal clear.
Do you have the full picture?
I don’t know how anybody could look at these 1787 records and not see the facts are indeed crystal clear.
The subject is the natural born citizen clause in the US Constitution not that there are multiple definitions floating around. I gave you recently an extensive citing, a body of work, that says there is only one definition for the intent and meaning - that is the Vattel's definition. This thread shows you more evidence, which you want to ignore.
they use the word citizen for senator..there must be a difference..between citizen and nbc
No person shall be a senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.
Have you considered Perkins v Elg?
“I gave you recently an extensive citing, a body of work, that says there is only one definition for the intent and meaning - that is the Vattel’s definition. “
And I gave you a link showing there were others (http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/natural-born-quotes/). There are also multiple Supreme Court cases shedding light on how the law is to be interpreted.
So do you pretend there is no debate and continue LOSING every case, or do you start thinking?
lang;(d)rang; No person except a natural born citizen,
wtf is lang; rang
Her parents at the time of her birth on the east coast of the United States where US naturalized citizens at the time of her birth; therefore, Elg was called a natural born citizen. That is the Vattel definition. Being born in the country of ParentS who are citizen.
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.