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.

[Mr Rogers]

“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.”

Let me give you an example. I am a NBC without any doubt. I also love and admire England, based on the ties of mutual culture and my 3.5 years living there while in the USAF.

If I became President, would I be more favorably disposed to England than...Kenya? Yep! Would that mean I was disqualified from office? When Harry Truman recognized Israel, it wasn’t because he was told it was in the US interests. It had to do with his reading of the Bible and beliefs about what God wanted.

That is all legal.

Can the President turn over the US military to Russia? Nope. Not legal. He would be impeached for trying, having first been replaced by the VP for insanity.

And no, Obama did not run as a dual citizen. He made much ado about his emotional attachment to Kenya, but he is NOT a Kenyan citizen - he isn’t qualified to be one. So again, your analogy doesn’t make sense.

[patlin]

you need to either get over the fact that on July 4, 1776 our nation NO LONGDER were ENGLISHMEN or pack your bags and go live with them if that is your preference. St George Tucker said the English Laws were ABSOLUTELY ABOLISHED. What part of that do you not understand?

Nor must we forget, what was also before slightly mentioned, that a part of the present United States was first settled by a Dutch colony; and another part, by Swedes. The tract claimed by those two nations extended from the thirty-eighth to the forty-first degree of latitude, and was called the New Netherlands, comprehending the present states of New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and the Eastern Shore of Maryland: it was conquered by the English, and confirmed to the crown of England by the treaty of Breda in 1667. The Dutch inhabitants remained in their settlements in New-York, and a part of Jersey; the Swedes, if I mistake not, were removed from Delaware to New-York, where they likewise remained. According to judge Blackstone, the laws of England, as such, could have no allowance, or authority there; this being a conquered and ceded country, and not a colony originally planted by Englishmen: and according to his principles, also, the laws of Holland, and of Sweden, were the municipal laws of those provinces, until the period of their conquest; and so continued until other laws were imposed upon them by the crown of England. When, and in what degree, a change was made in this manner; or whether any such change was ever formally made, can only be determined by recurrence to documents not within the reach of the author of these sheets.

From all these considerations it will appear, that in our inquiries how far the common law and statutes of England were adopted in the British colonies; or, in other words, what parts of those laws might be deemed applicable to their respective situations and circumstances, we must again abandon all hope of satisfaction from any general theory, and resort to their several charters, provincial establishments, legislative codes, and civil histories, for information. For although the colonial legislatures are understood to have been inhibited from passing any law derogatory from the sovereignty of the crown, or repugnant to the laws and statutes of England; which seems to have been the only common rule imposed upon them, yet the application of this rule in the several colonies will be found to have been as various as their respective soils, climates, and productions.

(snip for length)

3. Thirdly; what part of the laws of England were abrogated by the revolution, or retained by the several states, when they became sovereign, and independent republics.

And here we may premise, that by the rejection of the sovereignty of the crown of England, not only all the laws of that country by which the dependence of the colonies was secured, but the whole lex prerogativa (or Jura Coronae before mentioned) so far as respected the person of the sovereign and his prerogatives as an individual, was utterly abolished: and, that so far as respected the kingly office, and government, it was either modified, abridged, or annulled, according to the several constitutions and laws of the states, respectively: consequently, that every rule of the common law, and every statute of England, founded on the nature of regal government, in derogation of the natural and unalienable rights of mankind; or, inconsistent with the nature and principles of democratic governments, were absolutely abrogated, repealed, and annulled, by the establishment of such a form of government in the states, respectively. This is a natural and necessary consequence of the revolution, and the correspondent changes in the nature of the governments, unless we could suppose that the laws of England, like those of the Almighty Ruler of the universe, carry with them an intrinsic moral obligation upon all mankind. A supposition too gross and absurd to require refutation.

http://www.constitution.org/tb/t1e.htm

Geez, talk about debating someone with a toddler's perception of limited surroundings. Or do you still have your head stuck up that horse's arse?

[Mr Rogers]

Ah...so a citizen is ONLY someone born of citizen parents!

You’ll have to go back and rewrite the Constitution, and all our laws on citizenship...tell them Aristotle sent ya!

[Mr Rogers]

“Or do you still have your head stuck up that horse’s arse?”

Well, that’s about as good as your argument gets. If you think English common law had no impact on our legal system or the definitions of legal terms. then you are not worth talking to. You are a birther nutjob.

Feel free to take your novel interpretations of law into the courts, where you will get your birther butt paddled again...and again...and again!

[Mr Rogers]

“Citizenship is based on the allegiance of the parents.”

Wrong. That is why we have naturalized citizens, and why a child born of immigrants is STILL an American.

You are claiming that Obama is not only not a NBC (which has a weak case), but that he is not a citizen at all - which is just stupid.

[patlin]

I don't have to rewrite them, they have been in place since 1776. In 1789 they became codified as National Law & further explained in law from 1790 forward in ALL the naturalization acts & most importantly in the Expatriation Act of 1868 where the US formally declared that “DUAL CITIZENSHIP” was repugnant & inconsistent with the laws of the United States. I rely on law, you rely on a rogue judge's opinion. Now tell me, which has the higher authority because even the US State Dept to THIS DAY says that dual citizenship is only a concept that has never been codified by Congress.

[Mr Rogers]

So why are you all hot and bothered about dual citizenship? I’ve never brought it up, other than to dismiss it.

[patlin]

“Citizenship is based on the allegiance of the parents.”... Wrong. That is why we have naturalized citizens, and why a child born of immigrants is STILL an American.

Citizenship is a contract between the person & the state/national government for protection. A child can NOT enter into a contract without the consent of the parent so please show me the law that says that alien parents under US law have the right to consent to a foreign nationality for their children. Children rely on their parents for protection, thus it is the protection of the government that the parents are members of that has the strongest tie to the child. This is the law of nature & natures God that is written in the Declaration of Independence and from which ALL state & national laws have been based off of. As Cato said, look to the laws of the United Netherlands(Scandinavia) and see what your new government will look like. He didn't say the laws of the Great Britain, for what would the point of the revolution then been?

[Mr Rogers]

Good grief. Don’t you ever read?

A child born in the USA of parents who are here legally is most DEFINITELY a US citizen! Right now, the courts assume a child born of illegals is a US citizen, although I don’t think they have formally ruled on the issue. May have, tho.

Subject to the jurisdiction of the US does NOT mean ‘a US citizen’. It means here legally (and some say illegally).

[Sloth]

I love how all of a sudden all these Freepers are Vattel scholars. Good grief, get a life. The Constitution says “natural born citizen.” The most straightforward, common-sense reading of that is a citizen by birth, rather than one ‘naturalized’ at a later time.

[patlin]

You give me some disillusioned & misguided definition yet you give nothing to back it up. 'Subject to the jurisdiction' has several meanings, look it up! It could refer to local, state, territory, national, federal, judicial, etc. Citizenship is National/federal & aliens while in the US only owe a temporary & local allegiance to the laws as stated in WKA until they take a formal step to become citizens.

US State Dept & congressional archives at the Library of Congress: From 1790-1940, women & children derived citizenship from the husband/father respectively. This was to protect women who married an alien who she either later divorced or became widowed so that she would not have to go through he entire naturalization process. She merely had to fill out a form & show proof of residency. It in NO WAY was to codify any concept of dual nationality that a child of an alien father born on US soil claims to have.

It has been the law form the beginning of the colonies being established whether it was the Dutch, Swede or the English, that a child follows the condition of the father unless born out of wedlock or later legitimated. This law goes back to the dawn of time. Children owe their protection to the parents for they are not of age to consent to any other. Citizenship derived from the soil is of feudal descent and those born into it are slaves to a master and thus are not free. Citizenship derived from nature/inheritance is that of a free man and is the only form consistent with a Republic or democracy.

A natural born free citizen by nature is one born to citizen parents. A natural born subject is one born on the soil if a monarch or ruler who is not free to do anything without the permission of the monarch or ruler. I ask, which did the founders adopt? Did they found our nation on the rule of a monarch or central ruler or did they found our laws on that of the free man under a constitutional government of equal reorientation of citizens who are equal?

[patlin]

common-sense reading of that is a citizen by birth

What is common about owing allegiance to 2 nations from the moment of birth? How was a nation expected to survive if its citizens held dueling allegiances. What would be the outcome should war break out between the 2 states?

Even the English monarch never accepted this. Children born to Englishman were Englishman, PERIOD. Geez, open a book published prior to the 1900’s sometime or for that matter a history book published at the time of the revolution. As the saying goes,

those who are not learned in history are bound to repeat its mistakes!

[edge919]

Citizen by birth does not = natural born citizen. Under statutory laws, you can be a citizen by birth by being born just about anywhere in the world. The Supreme Court used Vattel’s definition in more than one case: NBC = all children born in a country to parents who were its citizens.

[patlin]

subject to the jurisdiction of laws does NOT mean subject to the jurisdiction of the nation as an equal participant in the making of the laws. Therein lies your problem with your interpretation of the definition of citizen at birth. One can not pass onto a child what one does not possess and that is the law of nature and of natures God. Unless & until aliens are given equal rights & representation in our legislative process, they have no authority under law to claim that their children possess that right from birth as the children themselves are not of age to consent to being aliens to their parents and the founders DID NOT have ANY FORM of FEUDAL LAW where the people were slaves to a master ruler.

Sloth = Aversion to work or exertion; laziness; indolence. YEP, that pretty much tells us all we need to know about you dear sloth.

[jamese777]

“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.”

---

The only persons who aren’t “under the jurisdiction thereof” are persons with diplomatic immunity and members of a foreign occupying army on US soil (like the Mexican Army during the Mexican War).
That was decided by the Supreme Court back in the 19th Century.
Haven’t you noticed that aliens who are in the US are still
“subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in that they must obey US laws while they are here? We can deport illegal aliens because they too are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” under US immigration law.

In 1898, the Supreme Court’s decision in US v Wong Kim Ark ruled that Wong Kim Ark, a Chinese-American man whose parents were citizens of China was a natural born American citizen since he was born on US soil. In 1898 the Chinese Exclusion Act was in force which did not allow Chinese immigrants to become US citizens but the court found that since Wong Kim Ark was born in the US, he was not an immigrant even though his parents were immigrants who returned to live in China.

No subsequent Supreme Court decision has overturned the ruling in Wong Kim Ark over the last 112 years.
Current US law defines a Citizen-at-birth as a person born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. No law passed by Congress and no Supreme Court decision has ever found that there is a legal difference between a citizen at birth and a natural born citizen.
The following is from the majority decision in US v Wong Kim Ark: “To hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution excludes from citizenship the children, born in the United States, of citizens or subjects of other countries would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.”

Your point on the Constituttionality of Obamacare should be decided by the US Supreme Court. That’s who decides what is constitutional and what is not. The Supreme Court has exercised the power of judicial review since Marbury v Madison in 1803.

The correct way to challenge Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president is via a Grand Jury investigation with subpoena power and expert testimony. An indictment if the investigation warrants it, a Bill of Impeachment introduced in the House of Representatives and if that passes, a trial in the US Senate.
I would have no problem whatsoever with using the proper steps to determine whether any high crimes or misdemeanors have been committed. I would also have no problem whatsoever with a conviction and removal of Obama from the presidency if the Senate votes to convict.

The following is from an ex-Marine Lieutenant, Vietnam Veteran and winner of the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart, US District Court Judge David O. Carter: “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 the 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 the 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.”—Judge David O. Carter in dismissing “Captain Pamela Barnett, et. al. v Barack H. Obama, et. al.” —October 29, 2009

[patlin]

dear jameseeee, why is it that to this day, according to US codified law, ALL immigrants must take an oath renouncing ANY & ALL allegiances to foreign states/nations/kings/rulers, renounce ANY & ALL titles of nobility and swear to a COMPLETE allegiance to the United Sates of America? This is the definition of US citizen and it does not apply to children born to aliens who owe allegiance to a foreign state/nation at the moment of birth,

PERKINS v ELG (1939)

Elg was held to be a “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” because at the time of her birth, BOTH her parents were naturalized US citizens. WKA was held to be a “CITIZEN” because there was a corrupt judge who used ENGLISH law instead of 100 years of US law.

ELK v WILKINS (1874) in which Gray wrote in the deciding opinion that “subject to the jurisdiction” meant more than mere local & temporary allegiance to the laws, it meant COMPLETE & UNDIVIDED political allegiance to the nation with ABSOLUTELY NO ATTATCHMENT to any foreign nation.

[etraveler13]

I like that “Pack of Jackals”...appropriate...;^)

[jamese777]

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.

---

Article Three, Section Two of the U.S. Constitution: “The judicial power shall extend to all Cases in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority, to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admirality and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.”
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a3_1.html

Supreme Court decisions are final and binding until and unless they are overturned by other high court decisions or by new laws passed by Congress. That is the meaning of the term “judicial power” in this Article of the Constitution. By the very nature of the Supreme Court being the “court of last resort” there is nowhere else to go with legal issues.

If the US Supreme Court isn’t crucial to the natural born citizen/Obama eligibility issue, why are so many lawsuits trying to get to the High Court for a definitive decision?

I’ll pass on the land offer, Arizona’s a little too warm for we Californians.

[Sloth]

One can not pass onto a child what one does not possess and that is the law of nature and of natures God.

LOL, now that is over the top. God? God determines citizenship criteria? I'd like to see the Bible passages for that.

As for not passing on what one does not possess, then none of us are American citizens, since we are all descendants of people who lived before the U.S. existed.

[etraveler13]

What you pose, is first, that you have been properly vetted to be NBC. What you proffer as a scenario for your intent, if that were to occur, would IMO be discoverd in debate prior to election. True you could lie in debate, but with a fully engaged MSM, not one who was bought and paid for by sellouts at the hightest levels, your history would be examined. Your voting history reviewed, your school years, and what you stood for also examined. In short, you would have been reviewed by the media, debated with your opponents, and in the end, voted in, or out, as a fully qualified Natural Born Citizen, in keeping with the constitution. If you end up bad...then we pursue other remedies within the law. Not being hamstrung by a President like we have now who hides everything, and sells America down the river to ruin...Dancing all the way...or perhaps more recently golfing all the way.
Nero fiddling as Rome burned....