Vattel and the Founders meaning of the term Naturels (Natural Born)

Journals of the Continental Congress 1781 ^ | 1781 | The Founders

[bushpilot1]

In the Journals of the Continental Congress there is a translation of the French word naturels to natural born. Meaning the Founders understood Vattel's naturels to mean natural born.

The document and its translation by the Founders must have been overlooked over the years by the courts, congress and the news media.

In French.

ARTICLE III Les consuls et vice consuls respectifs ne pourront être pris que parmi les sujets naturels de la puissance qui les nommera.

The Founders Translation.

The respective Consuls and Vice Consuls shall only be taken from among the natural born subjects of the power nominating them.

[DJ MacWoW]

Give em heck!

I'm going to bed. LOL

[patlin]

They don't even recognize when that happens. Overandoverandover........

ROFL, I know, but I am in an ornery mood as this sinus infection is keeping me from my sewing & alterations work due to the meds. So the least I can do is play and have some fun at their expense. Two can play this game, the only difference is that we come at them with a plethora of new historical evidence and all they can do is “cry me a river that runs in circles with the same ole diatribe”, teeheehee.

[jamese777]

rogers and jamese777 are trolls from obamaconspiracy.com

---

That’s a lie.

[jamese777]

The judges claimed NOTHING in that ruling other than the plaintiffs had NO STANDING. You quote some extra verbiage that has nothing to do with the actual ruling. It is merely an expression of their opinion.

---

“Merely an expression of their opinion!!!” Yeah, judges do express their opinions all right!
Judges often state their JUDICIAL opinions very precisely even when ruling on a dismissal for lack of standing.
And guess what? OTHER judges and justices READ those opinions of previous judges and justices to assist them in making up their minds on how they will rule on cases.
In the law its called “stare decisis.”

Here’s such an example:
“There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president–removal for any reason–is within the province of Congress, not the courts.”—US District Court Judge David O. Carter in dismissing “Captain Pamela Barnett, et. al. v Barack H. Obama, et. al., October 29, 2009

Judge Carter’s expressed legal opinion just might be the reason why so many subsequent Obama lawsuits have been adjudicated without one single finding that Obama is ineligible. You can bet that every subsequent defendant, from Obama himself to state officials who were sued for not properly vetting Obama have referenced Judge Carter’s “expressed opinion” in their presentments to courts.

You are correct that those who have challenged Obama’s eligibility for the presidency have failed to find a plaintiff who is likely to be granted standing to sue. That plaintiff would have to have suffered an “injury in fact” due to Obama’s election and I can think of only one person, Senator John Sidney McCain, the only other person to receive Electoral College votes and to have a legitimate chance to be president that was thwarted by Obama. Now THAT’s an “injury in fact.”

[patlin]

You have yet to prove that statement that includes WKA is part of the OFFICIAL DECISION and not just an addendum that merely states their personal opinion that is based on absolutely NO oral testimony of facts.

Your overall problem is that you grasp at any any statement from any corrupt corner you can find and you disparage the founders by editing their words to suit the extreme lefty’s(Obama’s) socialist marxist agenda of equal poverty for all. The longer you hold on to your delusions, the harder you are going to fall. tsk, tsk, tsk

[jamese777]

The judges claimed NOTHING in that ruling other than the plaintiffs had NO STANDING. You quote some extra verbiage that has nothing to do with the actual ruling. It is merely an expression of their opinion.
As far as you linking to the Madison speech, parse & edit, why not give ALL of it, especially the reason Madison came to his conclusion? I know, because it contradicts you interpretation of Madison’s words and shows your desperation to change the actual intent of the term ‘natural born’ as Congress has been trying to do for nearly 50 years now.

---

The link was to the ENTIRE Madison speech. I trust Freepers to be able to read it and discern the context which is very clear. In fact the very first paragraph states the context.
Here it is again:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_2s6.html

Has any US Supreme Court decision in US history or any law in the US Code backed up your position on this issue? If so, could you please state the court decision or the section of the law of the land where I can find it?

[patlin]

SHOW ME where in THE LAW that it states that SUPREME COURT DECISIONS are FINAL & BINDING & I'll sell you some cheap ocean front property in Arizona.

[little jeremiah]

The pack’o’jackals will either not show up, or show up and somehow try to squirm like maggots in **** “proving” that the above does not say, what it clearly says.

[Mr Rogers]

“IOW, according to Madison, birth on soil did NOT automatically make one a citizen, the parents must have been citizens for the child to become one. BWHAHAHAHA.... “

Actually, NO ONE is claiming birth in a country automatically makes one a citizen, since the children of diplomats and invading armies have always been excepted - until WKA.

HOWEVER, Madison makes it clear that birth in a country is the clearest determinant, and being raised in that society makes it natural that one is a citizen.

Oh - and PLEASE try to distinguish between NBC and citizen! ANYONE born on American soil can claim US citizenship. I don’t like it, but that is the way it is. I didn’t think even the birthers denied that Obama’s birth on US Soil makes him a US citizen...

Now, what do you think - if you can think - Madison would say about a child born of an American citizen & a sperm donor foreigner, raised in America, with no one doubting his American citizenship? American passport, American schools, lived and worked here his entire adult life.

Citizen by birth, or not?

In any case, the law is pretty well settled. Prior to 2008, no one doubted that someone born in America and an American by birth could run for President. This is a manufactured issue by weenies who want to rewrite the Constitution, using ONE SENTENCE in a French book to do so.

Which is why birthers LOSE every time. Not once. Not twice. EVERY time.

I suspect that is what drives the venom - losing every time hurts, doesn’t it? But you’ll push men like Lakin to put their careers on the line for total drivel. You will insult men like Rush Limbaugh, and call women like Coulter and Malkin phonies - all because you cannot handle the truth.

[edge919]

HOWEVER, Madison makes it clear that birth in a country is the clearest determinant, and being raised in that society makes it natural that one is a citizen.

For the person in question, he was born a British subject. Place is the 'clearest determinant' because you can't be born in two places at the same time, but you have to be a member of the society in which you are born, which is still determined by parents ... which is why Madison followed the part that is quoted by saying "Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony." His birthright is based on place and parentage.

[edge919]

This is a great find. It completely destroys the translation argument on Vattel’s Law of Nations and definition of natural born citizenship. I noticed how quickly the faithers went into full deflection mode.

[patlin]

I would like you to justify your claim that birth on soil = citizenship in light of the Expatriation Act of 1868. Why is this so hard for you to grasp? The law is the law and there has never been ANY law legalizing the "concept" of dual citizenship. The heart of the 14th lies in the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" which is clearly laid out in the law of 1868 which was passed 2 years after the civil rights act. The 14th was passed to formally make the states comply with the rights of blacks to right of citizenship by way of Constituional Amendment. It says NOTHING of foreigners, diplomats, etc. & neither did the preceeding law which stated:

"All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States."

Nope, no diplomats or such there, just a general class of ALL foreigns regardless of their title. These judges that quote from English law, words which have NEVER been codified in ANY of our laws. It's called judicial activism. Judicial activism aka legislating from the bench which has never been codified into law. In fact it should be reason enough to have a judges & justices impeached immediately for practicing it.

[bushpilot1]

It was hidden pretty good in the Records..posted them on a thread in May and again in the early part of June. Takes a while to get the word out.

How can a sentence begin..The naturals....This is when knew it must mean something else..my search began..gives me something to do..while the woman is out shopping..

Add this and the numerous posts by .rxsid, Red Steel, El Gato, patlin, BP2, Spaulding and others..the evidence is overwhelming against Obama.

We discovered Pericles made a law having two citizen parents to be an Athenian citizen.

[PA-RIVER]

So, lets say I am born in the US and I have a Russian father. I openly love my father and the mother country, Russia. According to you, I am still qualified to be a president.

I eventually run for president, openly as a dual citizen, pointing to Obama as a precedent dual citizen president. I Win. I get sworn in. I call Vlad Putin, and tell him lets have a minor skirmish to entertain and distract the peons. I immediately order all Nukes handed over to Putin and my Mother country. Dispute settled. We have peace.

This is one in a million scenario. There are millions of reasons that a foreign power would love to control the White House. Your interpretation of the clause hands them a key to the front door.

This is what the NBC clause was designed to prevent. This is why they understood it to be pure citizenship, inherited at birth from US citizens. This is why they documented it as such by Mr. David Ramsay. Letting Obama stand is inviting ruin and disrespect for the law.

[chatter4]

“The exclusionary clause (and subject to the jurisdiction thereof) is for the cases of diplomats who are not under the U.S. jurisdiction.”??

Not true.

In the Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873), the Supreme Court stated, “The phrase, “subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”

[chatter4]

” “It matters not where Obama was born..he is not a natural born citizen.”

This is something I have been saying all along! Just like the illegals who come here and have a kid - their children are NOT citizens, because their parents are NOT citizens!

DUH!!”

---

You are 100% correct. Our government has been ignoring the Constitution and case law for many years. Why are “Anchor Babies” automatically granted US Citizenship, when our immigration law clearly requires the child to be “subject to the jurisdiction”of the United States?

“Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”-Senator Jacob Howard, co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866

Sen. John Bingham, the man recognized as being the father of the 14th Amendment, had this to say on the subject of the jurisdiction clause: ”Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”

In the US Supreme Court case Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), the Court stated
regarding the phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction”, “The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”

In the Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873), the Court stated, “The phrase, “subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”

[ExTxMarine]

“The judges or justices that have stated an opinion on Barack Obama’s eligibility as a natural born citizen or not have referenced either the 14th Amendment or the Supreme Court decisions deriving from the 14th Amendment such as US v Wong Kim Ark from 1898.
There’s just no way around those opening 14th Amendment words:
‘ALL PERSONS BORN...’”

Two problems with your statement:
1) You are absolutely right, these are the judges OPINIONS; however, it is NOT the reason the decision was handed down. For example, if I am a judge and I sentence a man to death because we have clear video and DNA evidence of his actions and then I say this man is a good Christian - does not make it so - it is my opinion and has NOTHING to do with the fact that the man committed murder and THAT is why the decision was handed down! IOW, it had nothing to do with the case since every single one of these cases have been thrown out for not having standing - not because he is a NBC!

2) You say there is no way around those opening words “All persons born..” and I say there is - “...under the jurisdiction thereof...”! This was not a “loophole” which some people argue and this is not a mistake, it was meant to clarify that the people had a sole interest and allegiance to the United States! This has been shown to be the case over and over and over again.

A few judges decided that TODAY the words, “under the jurisdiction thereof” only means must abide by the laws, therefore everyone else is wrong does not make everyone else wrong! It makes the judges activists who want to make the laws be what they want them to be.

Here is a good example. Congress argued that Obamacare was NOT a tax and therefore did not violate the promises of The Won. However, in court documents, they are now arguing that it is a tax and therefore the states cannot say anything because the Constitution says that only Congress can regulate taxes. However, Obamacare was started in the Senate and then passed by the House - which is clearly against the law if it is indeed a tax. So, a judge says, yep it’s a tax and states cannot interfere, then they also make this UNCONSTITUTIONAL because it did not start in the House. So, they say that well, the House did vote on A health care bill, so that is fine. It does not make it so - it only exacerbates the continuing slide away from our freedom!

You are arguing that just because we are loosing sight of the founding fathers and the original authors, we shouldn’t worry because a few judges said it was ok. You sir are rooting for the demise of our country! Do you not see this, or do you simply not care?

[Mr Rogers]

“not subject to any foreign power”

This does NOT mean ‘has citizenship elsewhere’ - read WKA. Someone can be a foreign citizen and still be subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. The WKA decision discusses it fully.

A diplomat or member of an invading army are examples of foreigners who ARE subject to a foreign power - only here due to the demands of their home country.

If you do not understand this concept - that a foreigner can still be under our jurisdiction and not subject to a foreign power - then you aren’t ready to discuss the issue. I suggest you study some more...

“II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.”

http://supreme.justia.com/us/169/649/case.html

[omegadawn]

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Above is the actual text of the 14th amendment . You took the first half of your statement ANYONE BORN IN THE U.S. from the citizenship section of the clause , then you took the second part YOU ARE SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF THE U.S. from the equal rights section of the clause. This makes it APPEAR that your citizenship is based on you following the laws instead of being born a subject( a citizen oweing allegiance) by birth to American citizens. Citizenship is based on the allegiance of the parents . This is supported by the case of Wong KIm Ark, Minor vs Happensett, and numerious others.

[patlin]

The Politics of Aristotle: Introduction and translation By Aristotle

http://books.google.com/books?printsec=titlepage&pg=PA196&id=w-ktAAAAIAAJ#v=onepage&q=parents&f=false