Why the Supreme Court has been compelled to hold a new hearing on Obama’s eligibility.

HillBuzz ^ | February 17,2011 | Kevin DuJan

[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 Obama’s eligibility to hold the presidency.

Let’s 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 child’s 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 child’s 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.

[jamese777]

In 90 adjudicated attempts, including 10 Cert Petitions and 2 Applications for Stays or Injunctions at the Supreme Court of the United States, no judge or justice has found Vattel’s The Law of Nations to have precedential relevance to the eligibility of Barack Obama as a natural born citizen under Article II, Section 1.

[jamese777]

We can skip a moment to later editions of Vattel. Where the exact phrase natural born citizen is used with citizen parents...

The Supreme Court has used the term natural born citizen along with Vattel and the Law of Nations.

The Supreme Court said in 2003..The Law of Nations is recognized as law for over 200 years.

They do not always cite the 1758 French Edition. The 19th Century editions are cited and they are law in the United States.

Pay attention...Obama as President violates the 19th Century
editions. He violates all of them because his father is a foreigner.

A natural born citizen is born to citizen parents.

---

However no Judge or Justice and not one single member of Congress has expressed any support for your opinion.

[jamese777]

Of COURSE they are similar. That is why he wrote ‘The natural, or indigenous...’ - because they are largely interchangeable. He used synonyms for emphasis. And thus indigene is a word that shows what he meant by naturel - he referred to the native people. He wasn’t trying to deal with every possible case, because he was writing philosophy, not law.

But neither is a word meaning ‘natural born citizen’. And neither should be translated NBC. There are English equivalents to the French, and they should be used. To suggest that the original translations, which used the French words knowing they were identical in all but spelling to the English, was a bad translation that was fixed by substituting NBC is simply either dishonest or stupid.

My point was that inserting NBC as a translation of indigene was bad translating that distorted what Vattel wrote. I’m right.

“les sujets naturels” is a phrase that reasonably translates ‘the subject natural’ - and that makes sense as meaning the legal phrase, in English, of NBS. When used together, a correct translation is different than the word naturels by itself. And the bad translation made in 1797 did NOT translate naturels as NBC, but indigene - which has an English equivalent, and is not a part of any legal phrase.

It was indigene that was translated NBC, and that is simply wrong. It was the 1797 translation that stunk, not the 1760 one. You only argue otherwise because your entire worship of Vattel is without point if you translate Vattel correctly.

---

Isn’t it obvious by now that the current courts at the local level, at the state level, at the state Supreme Court level, at the federal district court level, at the US Court of Appeals level and at the US Supreme Court aren’t interested in Vattel’s relevance to Obama’s eligibility?

[edge919]

No, there are not 3 or 4 classes of citizens in the US.

I didn't say there were three or four. Waite's words,which you quoted, speak for themselves: "As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first." This acknowledges TWO separate classes of citizenship by birth. The first — NBC — is the only class for which there was no doubt. Persons born in the country of foreigners was the second class of citizens, and their citizenship was in doubt.

At the time of Minor, no one doubted that someone born of citizen parents was a citizen, but some argued that foreign parents meant the person was NOT a citizen unless naturalized.

Right, it's two separate classes of citizen. The first class is what Waite called natural born citizens. He did not use this term for the second class of citizens and neither did Gray in the Wong Kim Ark decision.

That is why WKA became an issue - was a person born in the US automatically a citizen, or did he need to be naturalized.

No, actually, the treaty with China prevented Ark from naturalizing if he was not recognized as a U.S. citizen at birth. Theoretically he could have been born stateless.

There is no legal basis for pretending that NBC is a special category of citizenship.

You've already heloped prove that there is a legal basis by quoting the Waite's words in the decision. Gray reinforces Waite's words in WKA by saying the Supreme Court was "committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment." IOW, NBC is excluded from the 14th amendment, which makes it a "special category" of citizenship.

[jamese777]

Your Golden Calf

---

Is that a golden calf? It looked like a snow cone to me.

[edge919]

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.

Here's the sentence from the 1781 Journals of the Continental Congress: "Les consuls et vice consuls respectifs ne pourront être pris que parmi les sujets naturels de la puissance qui les nommera." It was translated "The respective Consuls and Vice Consuls shall only be taken from among the natural born subjects of the power nominating them."

"Naturels" is translated to mean "natural born." Thus, when Vattel says "Les Naturels ou indigènes," he would have been understood by these founders to mean "natural born or natives" which is how the terms came to be formally translated 16 years later.

[Kenny Bunk]

The legal battle lines are well drawn up, which boil down to "founders' original intent," vs "amendments,precedents, practices, and politics." The only real battle has been on this site, because the issue has not made to any court on its merits. So, let's get ourselves back to the original article posted for the thread, although the thread-title is slightly misleading, as written by WND.
That is, DuJan's exposition of his thoughts on WHY Team Obama has taken such drastic steps to prevent the Birth Certificate from being made part of the public record. I think we all can agree that (a) the steps are indeed drastic, or at least very expensive (b) and raise a few questions.

DuJan points out that when the Obama boy was adopted by Mr. Soetoro, his name was changed, and that if normal protocols were followed, the Birth Certificate would have been amended, and the original sealed. This is fairly standard in most states.

DuJan thinks that this indicates that our POTUS has been operating under a name that is not, or no longer, legally his. IOW, our POTUS never took the step of legally changing his name BACK. This is WHY Team Obama wants the record kept out of public view. as DuJan puts it

"The reason Obama has spent so much time and money hiding
his original birth certificate
is because his adoption in the 1970s, and the bizarre,
Klingon-sounding name “Soetobakh” are just so
strange and difficult to explain to Americans.

..... myriad very messy constitutional and legal issues arise from
the fact the current US President has engaged in an orchestrated conspiracy
to hide his long form birth certificate and actual legal name.
THAT is why so much money and energy has been
lavished on the efforts to keep his secret."

To repeat some additional background: We know that he neglected to tell the Illinois Bar Committee that he had used another name. A stronger way to put that: he lied about ever having an alias, and about drug use, and traffic violations on his application. He was not disbarred. He left voluntarily after an inquiry. In exchange, nobody say anything for evermore. Typical lawyer disciplinary case.

No matter what we, or indeed the court, thinks about Natural Born Citizenship, is not at law at the moment. What the conference about is recusal of the Obama appointees and the possible effects of POTUS' use of a name not legally his.

Lawyer Hemenway has pulled of quite a coup here. Can't wait to see the result of this conference. It's a potential win-win for the SCOTUS in that they can continue to avoid the Natural Born Citizen legal hot potato, and we can get farther toward the bottom of this VERY weird situation.

[Mr Rogers]

Actually, it was ‘naturel’ that was translated native, and indigenes that was translated NBC. You will note the 1760 & 1787 translations had “The natives, or indigenes...”, so it seems reasonable to conclude the 1797 translation (”The natives, or natural-born citizens...”) translated indigenes as NBC.

However, “les sujets naturels” is a phrase, and a phrase can properly be translated differently than word for word. Thus the English equivalent was the legal term “natural born subjects” - which we know included the children of alien parents! Or do you deny that the children of alien parents were still considered NBS?

If Vattel had used “Les sujets naturels ou indigènes...”, your point would be valid. But that is NOT what Vattel wrote. And no, indigenes is NOT correctly translated NBC.

[Kenny Bunk]

ping

[mojitojoe]

It’s so easy to go back to 10 years in a couple of seconds if you know how to do it. Obviously you don’t and I’m not telling you how to search past posts. I’ll let you keep clicking next, next, next and you will hit a dead end before you ever get way back.
Do you have a life? It seems you spend an awful lot of time posting on a subject that you believe is BS. Trying to help Obongo, trying to make excuses for him. Why waste time on something if you think it’s irrelevant and silly? That is what someone does that has no life.

[AmericanVictory]

You are simply wrong, as testified to by Chief Justice John Marshall, John Jay, St. George Tucker and may others familiar with the discourse of the time, which you clearly are not. The French itself is very easy to understand and the description of indigenes in the early translations is extremely clear. Somehow you are not as convincing as was Mr. Justice Story. But keep up the misinformation; it is clearly what you get rewarded for.

[dalight]

Awesome post

[meadsjn]

Good post. Thanks for bringing the thread back to its original topic.

[Red Steel]

Of COURSE they are similar. That is why he wrote ‘The natural, or indigenous...’ - because they are largely interchangeable. He used synonyms for emphasis. And thus indigene is a word that shows what he meant by naturel - he referred to the native people. He wasn’t trying to deal with every possible case, because he was writing philosophy, not law.

He wasn't trying to deal with every possible case Ms. WKA?

Of COURSE these words have the same in meaning and intent - that "natural" = "indigenous" as written in the Law of Nations. The words "native is also = to "naturel" and = to "natural" and = to "indigenous."

De vattel shows use in his table of contents, Section 212, for the French version of the Law of Nations that he is speaking about the one and the same that "natives" and "indigenous" are the same as "Naturels," which is the same as natural born citizens written in the US Constitution or the Law of Nations.

It was indigene that was translated NBC, and that is simply wrong. It was the 1797 translation that stunk, not the 1760 one. You only argue otherwise because your entire worship of Vattel is without point if you translate Vattel correctly.

You're one of the few OBots that I've seen here take this BS viewpoint. Dingbat Michael Michael aka Koyaan the super troll and Zot "argued" the same in 2009. You and Michael Michael are patently incorrect.

[Kenny Bunk]

Well, I am at least partially responsible for getting it off topic! The title of the thread is a wee bit misleading ... and it detracts from this really quite incredible coup that Hemenway has accomplished ... which has nothing to do with our favorite topic, NBC, yet.

[Red Steel]

oh, there’s nothing to this birth certificate business...Bill O’Reilly says “The Factor” investigated and it’s “bogus”...

Joseph Farah said he spoke with BOR's staff about his "investigation," and they said their "investigation" mostly amounted to seeing Obama's bogus COLB on the Internet. BOR then declared he personally saw Obama's "Birth Certificate" LoL.

Farah said this last Friday. You can listen to it here on the Peter Boyles show for Podcast download:

"February 18, 2011 8am
Fri, 18 Feb 2011 08:14:59 -0500
Joseph Farah from wnd.com spoke with Peter about the latest on the Obama nativity story."

http://www.khow.com/cc-common/podcast/single_podcast.html?podcast=fullshow_boyles.xml

[edge919]

Actually, it was ‘naturel’ that was translated native, and indigenes that was translated NBC.

Sorry, but we have a specific example of the adjective "naturels" being translated specifically as "natural born."

[bushpilot1]

It was reported the 1797 Law of Nations was translated by Thomas Nugent. He passed away circa 1777. This means there was a manuscript and he translated the 1758 Edition into English.

This was posted 06/15/2010 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2535092/posts?page=49#49

The source was here:

Thomas Nugent

1700 - 1777

About the Author

Nugent translated Montesquieu, Burlamaqui, and Vattel into English.
In The Library:

translator: The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, with Three Early Essays on the Origin and Nature of Natural Law and on Luxury (LF ed.) (1797)
Online Library of Liberty - Thomas Nugent

The translators name Thomas Nugent has since been scrubbed. here

http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2246&Itemid=28

However they neglected to cleanse this:

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Fperson=4221&Itemid=28

[devattel]

The Law of Nations was referenced by the plaintiffs in Ankeny and the Court of Appeals was not swayed by the Swiss professor’s opinions on the law. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s decision in US v Wong Kim Ark plus English common law at the time of the framing of the constitution were the precedents cited by the Court.

This statement is accurate. However, the case also cites Wong Kim Ark, which you and I have already discussed bases their decision on the 14th Amendment. This original argument is flawed because the 14th Amendment cannot be used to define Natural Born Citizenship as it was designed to emancipate slaves who had no citizenship prior to 1866. Congress could never have granted Natural Born Citizenship to the slaves as they were property.

As you and I have also agreed, a precedent has been put in place by the current courts and the Supreme Court has yet to decide on this matter in the context of eligibility. All of this back and forth dialogue, albeit educating, could be resolved by the Supreme Court in roughly one or two months, should Congress or a state decide to act. It is clear Congress has no interest in putting this matter to rest for the entire nation. They have already let the world know what their understanding is of the Natural Born Citizenship clause when they passed their resolution for John McCain. That interpretation was in clear contradiction to the court's decision in Indiana as well as the Wong Kim Ark decision.

If anything the federal government is full of contradictions and they continue to perpetuate this environment by saying one thing one day, then another the next. It infuriates both progressives and traditionalists, conservatives, and liberals on numerous fronts. Then Hawaii continues to cover up a separate issue which I am convinced has very little to do with a birth certificate and everything to do with a gaping hole in the immigration law of the United States.

[Mr Rogers]

Sorry, but READ the translation.

Does it read “The natural born citizen, or native?

And had native been used in two previous translations? If so, which word was translated native?

And no, you had a PHRASE, “les sujets naturels”, which was translated natural born subject.

Now, if THAT is what Vattel meant, he was simply wrong, since we KNOW that NBS included those born of alien parents...