Posted on 01/25/2011 4:40:15 PM PST by RobinMasters
Obama's long form birth certificate and his college records.
I concur with post 81.
Assumption at this point is not case closed; it might be for you.
More weight than you are aware of!
So, what is the supreme law of the land -- the U.S. Constitution or Vattel's "Law of Nations"?
The Constitution of course.
Jefferson, and Madison, both used it's common sense, as a guide to writing our Constitution.
Too bad they didn't footnote the Constitution.
Which part of the passage is giving you problems anyway? Do you not agree with it 100% in totality?
Just because a source is not cited, does not make it untrue!
… 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."
I may not agree with it, but the Supreme Court has determined that, if a person is born on U.S. soil, he is ipso facto an American citizen.
If Obama was, indeed, born in Hawaii -- that makes him an American citizen. Period.
The whole "Barack Obama, Sr was a Kenyan, therefore a British national, therefore Obama isn't eligible" line of thinking annoys the hell out of me. No case of this sort is ever going to be awarded the time of day in a federal court. The law is not on your side -- certainly, the nationality laws of the U.S. as they stood in 1961 were not. It is a waste of time and effort.
And it is a red herring that obscures what the real case is. If Obama was born outside the U.S., then he is not an American citizen by birth and, therefore, ineligible to the office.
Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. I don't have any credible information on that issue. And, to date, nobody does.
But, if you're going to successfully challenge Obama's eligibility, a foreign birth is how it will have to be done.
Vattel's contention doesn't override what SCOTUS has already decided. And pursuing that route is a waste of time and effort -- a diversion, nothing more.
So eff Great Britain, eff his fathers citizenship, because a judge wrote it in a footnote on an unrelated case.
Sorry Charlie! That aint the Constitution!
Everybody who had any interest in politics -- especially those with a vested interest -- knew that Obama's father was a British national within a week of his announcing for the Presidency. He had even "confessed" it in his book.
How come nobody -- that is, not one single person -- raised a single objection regarding his eligibility?
Why is it that it was left to us amateurs to discover a technicality in the law books that seemed to contradict the judgment of every politician and political operative in creation (most of whom are lawyers, remember)?
You are chasing a will o' the wisp.
Vattel’s ‘Law of Nations is not footnoted in the Constitution but it is explicitly noted in Article 1 Section 8 to be enforced by Congress. The hitch there is the context of that requirement. My belief is that the Founding Fathers with knowledge and serious discussion of Vattel’s treatise left it out of the context for ‘natural born citizen’ in Article II because it had already been given status in Article I.
Vattel’s ‘Law of Nations is not footnoted in the Constitution but it is explicitly noted in Article 1 Section 8 to be enforced by Congress. The hitch there is the context of that requirement. My belief is that the Founding Fathers with knowledge and serious discussion of Vattel’s treatise left it out of the context for ‘natural born citizen’ in Article II because it had already been given status in Article I.
I see no reference to Vattel's in Article 1 Section 8 or in any other portion of the Constitution.
Read it very carefully for the 9th obligation of Congress in Sec 8 Article I. You will see ‘ To define and punish_______,and Offenses against the Law of Nations;”
My copy of the Constitution.
Read it very carefully for the 9th obligation of Congress in Sec 8 Article I. You will see ‘ To define and punish_______,and Offenses against the Law of Nations;”
My copy of the Constitution.
Sorry. I don't agree. That clause looks completely generic to me. At the time, international maritime law was well-established and commonly known -- and is appropriately referred to as the Law of Nations. Or, as we'd write today, the law of nations -- which we wouldn't mistake with a book's title.
For all intents and purposes, using the "Law of Nations" in reference to "punishing piracies and felonies" amounts to nothing more than what we'd call boilerplate today.
The Constitution is a very precise document. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing. And how important their work would become. If they meant to give Vattel's an active and vital role in the Constitution, they would have included something along the lines of "For further detail, refer to Vattel's Law of Nations".
Yes we disagree on somethings but respectively I hope. I do agree that the Founding Fathers were well versed in writings and were precise in there wording for the Constitution. I will agree that an expression such as ‘law of nations’ is generic and used as such in historical documents concerning debate and writing of the Constitution when that was happening. However, it is much recorded that the Founders were very much aware of the treatise of Vattel i.e. ‘Law of Nations’, capitalized as a specific document. Franklin was given some copies for his use and discussion and I believe he gave one to a public body. It is the fact that ‘Law of Nations’ when specified in the Constitution in Article II is capitalized gives me the opinion that the treatis and not some general world sociatal reference was intended. There remains the issue of whether or not ‘Law of Nations’ refers only to maritime events or if as also with the statements on NBC it served the Founders purpose as well in Article I of the Constitution. My belief is that Article I and Article II are joined in our Constitution.
Yes we disagree on somethings but respectively I hope. I do agree that the Founding Fathers were well versed in writings and were precise in there wording for the Constitution. I will agree that an expression such as ‘law of nations’ is generic and used as such in historical documents concerning debate and writing of the Constitution when that was happening. However, it is much recorded that the Founders were very much aware of the treatise of Vattel i.e. ‘Law of Nations’, capitalized as a specific document. Franklin was given some copies for his use and discussion and I believe he gave one to a public body. It is the fact that ‘Law of Nations’ when specified in the Constitution in Article II is capitalized gives me the opinion that the treatis and not some general world sociatal reference was intended. There remains the issue of whether or not ‘Law of Nations’ refers only to maritime events or if as also with the statements on NBC it served the Founders purpose as well in Article I of the Constitution. My belief is that Article I and Article II are joined in our Constitution.
The capitalization is meaningless in that regard. See the two adjacent clauses below:
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Note that each and every noun is capitalized. The fact of the matter is that, at the time of the Constitution, the language followed the German rule requiring capitalization of nouns.
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.