[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?

[kosciusko51]

Even further in Book 1, Section 19, Paragraph 211, it says:

I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

[bgill]

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

We have been saying it repeatedly in these threads. But the catch is, you still need the original BC to hold up in a court of law as evidence. Just because Hussein "claims" his daddy was O. Sr., doesn't mean it's legally true. The court doesn't care about what Hussein, um, Ayers wrote in Dreams because it needs a verifiable document.

[Jedidah]

You ask why it’s taken so long for someone to note this argument.

Fact is, this has been discussed many times for many months here on Free Republic.

It just needs to get before the Court.

[Lurking Libertarian]

When the Constitution refers to the “Law of Nations,” they are not referring to Vattel’s book. “The law of nations” was the 18th century term for what we today call “international law.” Vattel was one writer on that subject.

[rxsid]

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

It has been. Not this specific reference, but many others that show beyond a doubt that NBC = born in country to citizen parents, by folks like bushpilot1, many many other FReepers as well as a number of the eligibility attorney's for about 2 years now.

The main issue is finding a court with the guts to take on this unprecedented Constitutional crisis. Or, a Congress with the guts to launch an investigation into his secretive background.

Great job BP1.

[meadsjn]

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?

You understand this perfectly. The birth certificate is irrelevant. Obama is not, never was, and never will be, eligible to hold the office of president of the USA.

Every world leader knows this, enemies and allies. Every Democrat and Republican in the Senate and House of Representatives knows this. Every state legislator in the 50 states knows this. Every state governor knows this. Every media pundit knows this.

Now you know this.

Sleep well.