[bushpilot1]

There is another Supreme Court case..Justice Waite.. the words law of nations in the Constitution is Vattel's Law of Nations. Do not want to get into that one..the Obots have enough on their plates.

[BenLurkin]

200 years ago the “law of nations” didn’t include the likes of Yemen, Zimbabwe or Myanmar.

[Danae]

Brilliant!

[ClearCase_guy]

There has always been the hint that the Court might hear a case, if someone with "standing" were to bring it. Well, if the leadership of the House wants Obama out, they could probably file a suit, point to Vattel and say "Let's have Obama prove he is a natural born citizen, in accordance with this definition."

Can't be done. Birth certificate doesn't matter. Birthplace doesn't matter. His father wasn't a citizen. Game over -- if the Court sticks with this precedent.

[kosciusko51]

This seems to clarify the situation completely, and I have not seen it before. Why has it taken so long for someone to come up with this argument?

Let me make sure that I understand this:

Since the US Constitution refers to the "Law of Nations" and the Law of Nations says that:

The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

Therefore, even a person born in the US is not a natural-born citizen if both parents are not citizens. Therefore, the Hawaii BC is a moot argument.

Do I understand this correctly? If so, why is this not being said over and over with these links, or did I miss something?

[Non-Sequitur]

If they were referring to Vatel’s book then wouldn’t they have capitalized “Law of Nations”?

[sourcery]

Politically, it would be far better for the voters to remove Obama, than for the courts to vacate him. However, threre is one big advantage to having him declared never-President by SCOTUS: Any laws he signed would be invalidated also. The best scenario would be for him to lose the next election, and then for SCOTUS to rule he never was President.

[bgill]

Vattel is quoted at least five times in that source.

[Slings and Arrows]

Is that the sweet scent of a smoking gun that I smell?

[PA-RIVER]

Can you copy and past from the source? I can’t open the document.

[American Constitutionalist]

Yeah, their voices are fewer in between and slowly shutting up.
Remember back about 2 years ago, the birthers were called kooks and a fringe group that has a cause that is going nowhere ? .... and now ? their voices are saying, ahhh just leave him in office until 2012, he will be voted out.. my my, how 2 years have changed things...
Now why would they be now saying " just leave him in office and let him serve his term out until 2012 " .... so now ? they are admitting that he is a fraud ?

[CDR Kerchner]

Hi Bushpilot1,

This Supreme Court case has been previously cited in the Kerchner et al v Obama et al briefings to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia in regards to the applicability of Vattel and the Law of Nations and in some of Mario’s prior writings about Vattel and the Law of Nations in his blog at: http://puzo1.blogspot.com

Several have asked Mario about the case you just posted and whether it has been called to the attention of the court in the Kerchner v Obama court filings. It has. The comment below is passed along from Atty Mario Apuzzo.

---

I have already cited this case. See:

Given that citizenship affects “the behavior of nation states with each other,” Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004), the Founders would have looked to the law of nations to define it for the needs of the new nation. Clearly, citizenship is both a national and international matter which affects the relations among nations. The Founders and Framers would have looked to the law of nations to define citizenship in the new nation and not the English common law.” http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/11/framers-used-emer-de-vattel-not-william.html

The Framers did not define an Article II “natural born Citizen” because they did not see a reason to. It was a term that was well defined by the law of nations and well-know by civilized nations. Given that citizenship affects “the behavior of nation states with each other” (Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004), all civilized nations knew what the definition of citizenship was. The Founders believed that the common law was discoverable by reason and was forever present, a “discoverable reflection of universal reason.” Sosa. So since the Constitution did not define “citizen” or “natural born Citizen,” “resort must be had to the customs and usages of civilized nations” found in the law of nations, as defined by scholars, jurists, and commentators of the time who devoted “years of labor, research and experience” to the subject. The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677, 700 (1900).
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.html

I also cited the case to the Third Circuit in my reply brief. See page 12.

Mario

---

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al