Posted on 02/17/2011 8:31:53 PM PST by dalight
Drudge has linked this story from World Net Daily that notes the odd decision by the Supreme Court to hold a new conference on Obamas eligibility to hold the presidency.
Lets research WHY the court could be compelled to do this.
It MUST have something to do with the fact that Obama has no birth certificate on file in the Hawaiian Hall of Records with the name Barack Hussein Obama on it since his original Hawaiian birth certificate with that name was sealed in the 1970s when he was adopted in Indonesia by Lolo Soetoro, his stepfather. At the time of adoption, a childs original birth certificate is sealed away and replaced in the Hall of Records by a new birth certificate that bears the adopted parents names and the childs new name, if a new name is given.
This is what happened to Obama, when he was renamed Soetobakh by his mother and stepfather at the time of adoption.
(Excerpt) Read more at hillbuzz.org ...
No, not wrong on any account. The phrase “natural born citizen” did not appear in translation until 1797, and it is a poor translation. A better translation would be ‘The natives, or indigenous people...’
As for the debate, there was none. There was no debate involving that section of the Constitution.
There is no denying that “natural born subject” was a legal term with a specific meaning, or that “natural born citizen” is an Americanized version of it.
Had the Founders wanted to follow Vattel, they would have written “born of citizens”. That they used a legal term indicates they MEANT a legal term...they were not stupid enough to insert a legal phrase without intending the meaning of it.
We need to resolve the natural born citizen issue so I can tell my dual citizenship (US/UK) brother-in-law whether he can run for POTUS when he turns 35 or not.
BHO dba POTUS could be grandfathered in under some new “Abandoned child” clause.
It bothers a lot of us!
“Consistent with the views expressed above, I suggest that pressure be put on House Republicans to convene hearings in the House of Representatives on the natural born citizen-Obama eligibility issue.”
I am not aware of a single statement from any of them in support of the Natural Born Citizen-Obama is ineligible movement and they certainly haven’t lent their attorneys to the lawsuits filed on this issue.
I wonder why not?
Virginia Mior was claiming suffrage on the basis of being a 14th amendment citizen. The court rejected her claim because they said she was a natural born citizen and cited Art II Sec I to explain what that meant. It's very explicit. It wasn't cited simply for background, but it was a key factor in rejecting her claim of suffrage.
I think you missed this statement of mine in post number 289. See the reference to Wikipedia?
That's what I was replying to. There was no link nor a any quoted text from any wikipedia entry during or prior to that post. You referenced it as if it was part a running argument you were making. IOW, it came from out of the blue and makes no sense, especially when the claim does not jibe with the actual text of Law of Nations.
This is pure and utter nonsense. Vattel uses the term 'naturel' which was translated in 1781 in the journals of the Continental Congress to mean "natural born." The 1797 was fixing a poor translation from prior editions of Law of Nations.
Virginia Minor brought suit demanding eligibility to participate in the electoral process. In the course of determining their decision, the Supreme Court laid out quite precisely the definition of natural-born citizen in order to support their finding.
Barack Obama does not meet this definition.
That’s not the reason. The reason is it doesn’t exist or it lists another person as his father.
His name is no big deal. I mean who cares?
John
Wrong as usual. IIRC, the time ‘naturel’ was translated natural born, the phrase was ‘subjects natural’ - only French (sujects naturel???). THAT phrase was translated NBS for the English government, and NBC for the American government.
But Vattel didn’t use ‘subjects natural’, he used “Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.”
The 1760 was “The natives, or indigenes...”, as was the 1787 American translation. That is HARDLY a poor translation, and it wasn’t fixed by turning “indigenes” into “natural born citizen.
That isn’t too hard for you, is it? Indigenes means indigenous, not ‘natural born citizen’!
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html
Since the issue wasn't addressed there, it was covered by WKA in the 1890s.
The Founders must have gone through a time vortex when they drafted the Constitution. A partial list.
The Koran is not a book used by Congress to help form this country.
We know you and Obama wish the Koran was relied on to help draft the Constitution...but for you sadly it was not.
Take a moment...compose yourself.
Virginia Minor brought suit demanding eligibility to participate in the electoral process. In the course of determining their decision, the Supreme Court laid out quite precisely the definition of natural-born citizen in order to support their finding.
Barack Obama does not meet this definition.
The Koran is not a book used by Congress to help form this country.
We know you and Obama wish the Koran was relied on to help draft the Constitution...but for you sadly it was not.
Take a moment...compose yourself.
When Thomas Jefferson and James Madison first proposed the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom (the frame and basis of what was later to become The First Amendment to the Constitution) in 1779, the preamble began, “Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free.”
Patrick Henry and other devout Christians attempted to substitute the words “Jesus Christ” for “Almighty God” in this opening passage and were overwhelmingly voted down. This vote was interpreted by Jefferson to mean that Virginia’s representatives wanted the law (and I quote Jefferson) “to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahomedan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination.”
Vattel is not listed under the Swiss.
This is the right way.
BTW, several Republicans have actually tried to speak up about this but they were creamed, tarred and feathered. When Hugh Hewlett, Bill Kristol, etc, etc. is the first to denounce you as a fool, then the MSM deride you, it doesn't take long for a politico to know that "Thar be sharks in that water." Ultimately, it is the growing suspicion of the American public and the strength of some elected officials addressing this glaring problem as part of the next election cycle who will eventually break this wide open.
It hasn't helped that the Orly Taitz became the face of this question, though. But, we go on. It is our strength, not our weakness, that we persist in digging at questions that seem to need answering.
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.