Posted on 05/11/2010 5:41:50 PM PDT by bushpilot1
Did Obama’s father pay taxes??
NO real offense meant, but Jefferson also read the Koran.
The difference between many modern day folks(generalization) and Jefferson is he applied critical thinking skills to all that he read. He would also expect that of those to whom he supplied recommended reading.
Modern day folks(generalization) can’t get the idea of it in 30 seconds or less...they won’t invest the time learning it.
Modern day folks(generalization) don’t have the required reading comprehension skills to read controversial materials and not be sucked into them.
Jefferson lived in a time which he helped establish truly “free speech,” where anyone could debate the government, books, newspapers with a critical mindset.
Yeah..the Koran because of the Barbary Pirates..he wanted to know the enemy.
The Obamabots first said..the Founders could not read French..they would not be able to understand Vattel in 1758,
Then they said..Vattel is international law.
It goes on and on their excuses....
We have figured out..the source of natural born citizen in the translations.
Obama is not a natural born citizen. See rxsid’s and El Gato’ posts.
The birth certificate is needed to verify Obama’s fathers citizenship. It does not matter if he was born in Hawaii.
Hope you are putting something together. I am well into a bottle of Merlot.
FWIW, your definitions are of the English word indigenous. While I assume this definition is quite similar to the equivalent word in French, there may be shades of meaning that vary.
Since we’re dealing with shades of meaning here, that could be pretty important.
I agree with you that using Vattel as a primary argument for the legal definition of NBC is a pretty weak reed.
I have yet to see any convincing argument that NBC means “citizen at birth” as opposed to “naturalized citizen.” If so, its specific parameters would change as the definition of citizen at birth changed, notably with the 14th Amendment.
Author
Vattel, Emer de, 1714-1767
Format
Book
Publication Date
1760
Location
Law 3rd Floor Special Collections
Call Number
INT00.V37D 1760
Availability
Loading-balls check availability
Author
Vattel, Emer de, 1714-1767
Format
Book
Publication Date
1773
Location
Law 3rd Floor Special Collections
Call Number
INT00.V37D 1773 V.1, V.2
Availability
Loading-balls check availability
Nope. AFAIK, anchor baby citizenship was never passed into law via a statute. I also am not aware of any definitive judicial ruling that it exists. It has just been assumed by the courts as an outgrowth of interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
If Congress were to pass a law excluding future anchor babies from citizenship, I can guarantee you it would be immediately challenged in the courts as in conflict with the 14th Amendment. It is possible the courts would acquiesce to the new law, but I think it is at least as likely they would declare it unconstitutional.
USSC quoting vattel 1760 edition.
I don't see why. Nobody is contending that Obama, Sr. was an American citizen. It is perfectly well known he was Kenyan and/or British. And I'm not sure a BC specifically lists citizenship of the parents.
In fact, I'm unsure what might be on the BC that could hurt Obama's case. I suppose in theory it could indicate he was born outside the country, but I find that very unlikely. I really don't see a logical reason why it's being kept secret.
In fact, I'm unsure what might be on the BC that could hurt Obama's case.
There are a number of details that might be embarrassing. It might, for example, indicate that his father is someone other than Barack Obama, Sr. (Frank Marshall Davis?) Obama may not even have been aware of it, until after he had run for office. Parents have lied to their kids about these sorts of things, before.
New York Times calls Vattel a great Philosopher...lol
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=940CE6DD1038E033A25751C1A9669D94659FD7CF
Seems very unlikely to me. The Obamas were married at the time of the birth. Birth records list the legal father, which is always the husband, if there is one, not the biological father.
Anyway, before the availability of DNA testing the identity of the biological father was never known for sure, except by the mother, and quite often not by her.
Should read "I have yet to see any convincing argument that NBC means anything other than “citizen at birth” as opposed to “naturalized citizen.”
I’m not claiming that Obama’s father is not who he had always thought he was, but that there could be details on the BC that would be embarrassing, other than citizenship or native birth.
Such as?
Not trying to be difficult. I’m just curious what information might be on there that could be embarassing.
They mentioned Vattel, and directly quoted several sections IN particular:
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."
"The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the laws or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages."
It doesn't, but it does include their birthplaces. Since BHO Sr was born in northwestern Kenya, he was not a citien at birth, so unless a naturalization certificate or record could be found for him, he was never a citizen. AFAIK, no one has indicated that he was naturalized so.. he very likley was not a citizen.
The other thing the BC provides, as would a real paper CoLB with raised seal and stamped signature, is proof of who his father was, legal proof, not the hearsay we have now.
The Founders were guided by Vattel a great deal. In fact, the series of Constitutional Commentaries repeat it up to the point of the governments 'reconstruction'.
There is a natural and a positive law of nations. By the former, every state, in its relations with other states, is bound to conduct itself with justice, good faith, and benevolence; and this application of the law of nature has been called by Vattel, the necessary law of nations, because nations are bound by the law of nature to observe it; and it is termed by others, the internal law of nations, because it is obligatory upon them in point of conscience.
James Kent, Commentaries
That's true, but since the Constitution defines very very few of its terms, we must look elsewhere for the definition understood by those who wrote and ratified the Constitution.
We know the term "natural born citizen" and the variant "natural born free citizen", was in use well before the Constitution was written. But almost every use gives no hint as to it's exact meaning. However the Journals of the Continental Congress, for July 27, 1781 documents a translation of the French "naturels" to "natural born" in a secret agreement with France. Vattel, in French, said that "naturels" and "indigenes" were those born in country of parents who were citizens. Many have argued that "naturels" means natives, and "indigenes" doesn't mean naturals or natural born either. (In reality depending on context, either word could be translated as "naturals". But apparently those who translated that 1781 treaty felt "naturales" when modifying "subjects" was equivalent to "natural born". If that was the understanding, then Vattels "naturels" could also be "natural born".
The evidence is quite strong that "naturales" was understood, in these sorts of contexts, to mean "natural born". Thus the case for the Vattel "definition", requiring birth in the country (with exceptions for military and diplomats) of citizen parents, being the one the founders understood for "natural born citizen", is very strong.
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.