Vattels Le Droit Gens Paris 1863 
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 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at hillbuzz.org ...
Vattels Le Droit Gens Paris 1863
So...why did the first two translations have ‘The native, or indigenes’, and why does your beloved 1797 translation - 10 years AFTER the Constitution was written, remember - have ‘The natives, or natural born citizen...’
Oh well. Bottom line? The Supreme Court doesn’t and will not ever give a rat’s rear about Vattel. Neither would you, if a bad translation hadn’t incorrectly translated indigenes as NBC...but since it did, you think Vattel was carved in stone and delivered to George himself at Mt Vernon.
Now, if THAT is what Vattel meant, he was simply wrong, since we KNOW that NBS included those born of alien parents...
Misleading non sequiturs by you again. Edge919 was referring to English law. The English NBS law is naturalization, which is not natural law, and is obviously therefore not about being natural born.
De Vattel made no mistake here.
Vattel states this in "Section 215 Of the children of citizens born in a foreign country."
"In England however, being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.
It is asked, whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country, are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and it is necessary to follow their regulations.
By the law of nature alone, children follow the conditions of their fathers, and enter into all their rights. The place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot of itself furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say of itself, for the civil law, or politics, may order the otherwise, from particular views."
De Vattel tells us unequivocally in the above passage that he stated to us that the English "Natural Born Subject" is a "regulation" or "civil law" and is NOT the same as natural law or being a natural born citizen as written in the U.S. Constitution.
“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.”
I don’t want to get too far in over my head now, but I think the Conference is considering Hemenway’s and Hollister’s Petition for Rehearing. For the umpteenth time, I am NOT a lawyer, but I did sleep with one last night.
The Petition for Rehearing itself asks the Court to rehear their original Petition for Writ of Certiorari.
That original Petition, IIRC, does include questions about the Framers’ intent about inserting the NBC language into the Constitution. I believe the motion for recusal of the two Obama appointees also raised the NBC question.
In that case, the NBC question would be before the Court at its upcoming Conference. I don’t recall the use of different names/aliases being an issue or questions raised, although the defendant/respondent is “Soetoro” a/k/a Obama.
Sorry, but this argument supports the idea that it translates as natural born in reference to citizenship as much as it would for subjectship. The framers obviously used the term 'natural born citizen' (which we know thanks to John Jay's letter) so it would be consistent for the same term to be translated in the same fashion. Why change it in 1797 if it wasn't correct prior to that?? Second, you miss the entire context of Vattel's passage which is about natural citizenship ... which means being born to citizen parents. As far as NBS is concerned, Vattel refers to England's law as an act of naturalization: "Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner."
As Bette Davis said,
"Fasten your seat belt. It's going to be a bumpy night."
I think the Conference is considering Hemenway’s and Hollister’s Petition for Rehearing.
I surely hope so, but they are playing this very close to their vest. We won't know until we know and that will be when they want us to know. Exciting, ain't it?
“Exciting, ain’t it?” Definitely!!! I became a ‘reluctant birther’ with the whole NBC question. I find that I’m something of a stickler for strict Constitutional interpretations.
What I was trying to say in my earlier post is that the NBC question is before them 3 ways: in the Petition for Rehearing, the Motion to Recuse, and the Petition for Writ of Certiorari, so it IS before them. Whether they choose to pay attention or not, or whether they are willing to settle that question, is up to them. We will never know what deliberations went into their eventual decision.
What does concern me is that the actual briefs are read and summarized by a random ‘pool’ of law clerks. The Justices themselves see the summaries. While Hemenway has moved to recuse Sotomayor and Kagan, their clerks can still be in the pool preparing the summaries and recommendations to the Justices.
“Bill O’Reilly is a POS ...”
How true.
Interesting observation. Nugent is credited as the translator, but, on the back cover of the Liberty Fund edition is the statement “Liberty Fund presents the first modern edition of the 1797 English translation.” The Liberty Fund edition has added posthumous notes from the French 1773 edition as well as two relevant essays, one on “Foundation of Natural Law” and “Can Natural Law Bring Society to Perfection without the Assistance of Political Laws?”
I know that you, Bushpilot, will solve this mystery.
Looking back at this thread, having been out of town when it appeared, the growing number of people who understand the essence of the issue is very encouraging. The exposure of the “Persona” software used to make the enemies of our Constitution appear more numerous than they are seems not to be useful here. As usual, same two well-known trolls appear again and again, eventually reverting to a dialog between themselves. But when readers know who they are, they become optional reading. New contributors, like Devattel, who appears a thoughtful contributor, will discover, after the second or third time seeing the same arguments, the role Rogers and James play, and only engage to clarify the misdirection for new members as he once was.
Other than the dilution of the discussion, Mr. Rogers and James777 serve a purpose; they cause those who haven't seen the clever misuse by Mr. Rogers of Wong Kim Ark, to read it, or read it more carefully. If you know James’ and Roger's intent, it is a useful exercise to unravel their subterfuge. Counterexamples or proofs by contradiction - Chief Justice Hughes confirmed Vattel in Perkins v. Elg and Bingham, 14th Amendment Author never doubted Vattel, both of which are inconsistent with Roger's assertion - don't display the reasoning as well as exposing the semantic or logical tricks directly; of what use is the time we have taken to learn our history if we don't educate others? So there is some value to sparring with trolls, but ridicule wins no arguments, and convinces noone.
One of America's great mathematicians, one who produced four or five Field's medalists, R.L. Moore, at UT Austin, was known for giving his students theorems to prove, over half of which were not true! His students are famous for the originality and independence of their work.
Reading the arguments, where Mr Rogers returns to the excursion into British law by Gray in Wong Kim, it is surprising that not more ignore the misdirection and simply quote our justices? Waite even explained that it came from our common-law. Charles Evans Hughes noted that because Marie Elg was born in the U.S. and her parents were naturalized, she was a natural born citizen (and couldn't be denied her birthright, or natural born citizenship, even though her parents repudiated their naturalized citizenship some years later, and moved her back to Sweden) and could run for president after a fourteen year residency!.
While I haven't counted, it appears that a majority in the FR society interested in the subject understands the issue. Thus the job for which Rogers and James (who could be the same blogger using "Persona") may be being paid, is to minimize or slow the education of others. The real question now is how to inform "the people" that our government does not have a Constitutional president?
Anyone ever staked out the place and take photos? Can’t miss that chin anywhere.
Thank you for this post.
Paid.
Hmm, the atmosphere got very heavy all of a sudden.
Proves all the suits in DC know exactly what’s going on. And lies abound, as well.
They all know 0*ucker is not a NBC. All of them.
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.