Rubio, Amnesty and Article II

I realize that many Tea Party folks have fallen for leftist tricks aimed at keeping the current Article II constitutional crisis off the campaign table, but just how far are they willing to fall in the name of political agendas?

Real “constitutionalists” are as concerned about Article II as they are any other constitutional text, maybe even more so since the current Muslim-n-Chief is a one-man constitutional crisis of monumental proportions. Faux “constitutionalists” are those who cherry-pick which parts of the founding document to take issue with, or make up new meanings for old words, all based on their individual political agenda.

Many Tea Party folks seem to not care whether or not we uphold Article II constitutional requirements for the offices of President and Vice President. Others seem perfectly happy to accept fraudulent definitions of the term “Natural Born Citizen” so long as it suits their political agenda. In both cases, our founding principles and values take a back seat to political expedience.

However, there is a reason why members of congress tried to alter the Natural Born Citizen requirement at least eight times in the run-up to Obama’s fraudulent election in 2008 – why leftists insist that the founders meant “anchor baby” when they required that only Natural Born Citizens of the United States could hold the highest offices in our land – and that Marco Rubio would make the perfect VP selection for Mitt Romney in 2012….

Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is without any reasonable doubt, a total fraud, and ineligible for the office he currently holds. Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen of the United States and neither is Marco Rubio.

So, to keep Obama in office, leftists must eliminate the true meaning of the term Natural Born Citizen and the best way to do that is to get Republicans to put their own ineligible candidate on the GOP ticket with Romney… enter Marco Rubio, who otherwise has a very weak résumé.

Simply stated, a Natural Born Citizen is a citizen via the bloodline of the natural birth father. Obama’s natural birth father was never a legal citizen of the United States. He was at all times a legal citizen of Kenya and as such, he could only pass Kenyan citizenship to his offspring, Barack Hussein Obama II.

Likewise, Marco Rubio’s father was a legal citizen of Cuba at the time of Marco’s birth, and he could only pass Cuban citizenship to Marco. Marco Rubio was therefore, born a Natural Born Citizen of Cuba, living abroad in exile in the United States. Rubio’s parents did not become U.S. citizens for several years after Marco’s birth.

In contrast, Mitt Romney was born in Detroit a Natural Born Citizen of the United States as the son of a natural birth father (Gov. George Romney) who was at the time of Mitt’s birth, a legal citizen of the United States able to transfer Natural Born Citizenship via the Laws of Nature.

Even as confirmed by the U.S. Senate in a 99-0 unanimous vote, John McCain is also a Natural Born Citizen of the United States, born abroad in Panama to a legal U.S. Citizen father. This proves that all Senators know the true definition of Natural Born Citizen and that they knowingly and willingly refuse to apply that standard to Barack Hussein Obama or Marco Rubio.

We know why leftists who have tried to alter or abolish the Article II Natural Born Citizen requirement for years would want Marco Rubio, RNC leader for illegal amnesty, to appear on the GOP ticket in 2012 --- but why do many Tea Party and GOP voters want Rubio on the ticket?

First, placing Rubio on the GOP ticket would galvanize the fraud of 2008 when America seated its first non-Natural Born Citizen in the Oval Office. Second, Hispanic immigrant Rubio is leading the charge for illegal amnesty in the GOP -- a position allegedly opposed by Tea Party and patriotic type voters.

How is Rubio being shoved down the throat of pro-American voters? --- The “why” is obvious, once you understand our current dilemma…Who is voting this November?

USA Demographics White Anglo-American – 64.9% Hispanic – 15.1% African-American – 12.9% Asian – 4.4% Other – 3%

“The longstanding gap between blacks and whites in voter participation evaporated in the presidential election last year, according to an analysis released Thursday. Black, Hispanic and Asian voters made up nearly a quarter of the electorate, setting a record.” – The New York Times reported in April 2009.

If 50% of white Anglo-American voters stay home or vote a 3rd option of any sort in protest, guess who has a voting majority in America today? These folks seldom pass up an opportunity to vote themselves gifts from your wallet…

People forever seeking to vote themselves gifts from the treasury, and “change” America into something it was never intended to be, are showing up to VOTE in increasing numbers -- just as frustrated White Anglo-American voters stay home in increasing numbers. Their “conscience” will allow the re-election of the first anti-American and illegal White House resident. What kind of conscience is that?

African-Americans are no longer the second largest voting bloc in America. They have been replaced by Hispanics over the last several years, over half of which are in the Unites States illegally. Now they are able to vote thanks to insane moto-voter and “no ID required” voting laws put in place to make fraudulent illegal alien votes “legal” throughout most of the U.S. – It’s unconstitutional, immoral, unethical and even treasonous… but they found a way to make it “defacto-legal.”

In many states, lawmakers foolishly passed laws to give drivers licenses to illegal aliens, and then passed laws requiring only a photo ID, such as a driver’s license, in order to vote in U.S. elections. The illegal alien vote is now equal to the legal citizen vote, even before formal amnesty is a reality. Dead people can vote, why not illegal aliens?

And since the Hispanic community is growing by leaps and bounds, pouring across our southern border like a stampede of young peaceniks headed to the next Woodstock, politicians feel obligated to pander for that vote even if they have to offend every legal citizen doing it.

The DNC wants Marco Rubio on the 2012 GOP ticket to forever eliminate the Natural Born Citizen requirement for high office. But the RNC wants him on the ticket too, in order to pander for the 15.1% Hispanic Amnesty vote that will otherwise go to Barack Hussein Obama in November.

If Americans allow Rubio to appear on the GOP ticket, Article II requirements for high office are forever gone and amnesty is a sure deal.

I get why RNC and DNC inside the beltway scumbags want this, but why are Tea Party folks foolish enough to go along with it?

The POINT is that they used the terms interchangeably.

Yes, the STATES used the terms interchangeably. Since the federal governments authority was to make a 'uniform rule for naturalization' for immigrants, not residents, the States were passing legislation that was rightfully in their authority.

So what?

It probably took several years for ALL the States to get the legislation passed in order to affirm everyone that had been born there was properly enrolled as a 'natural-born' person.

Again, so what?

Those actions of the Commonwealths and/or States in no way grants the FEDERAL government the jurisdiction to control every aspect of citizenship.....neither then, NOR now.

You say: First, your complaint was 'natural born citizen' was nowhere to be found in Vattel. And I showed you. I say: You showed me a lie. NBC was not found in any translation until years AFTER the Constitution was written and ratified. There were MANY English translations of Vattel’s book available throughout the world before the Constitution was written but the words NBC were not interposed until 1797. This is a 1760 version in English that was available and it did not contain the term natural born citizen.

Natural Born Citizen translated into the French would be “citoyen de naissance.” You will not find that in any French version of Vattel’s book. You will find NATURELS which translated = adj. natural, inartificial, unaffected; easy, unsophisticated; organic, inbred; and INDIGENES = adj. indigenous, native; nm. native, someone who is indigenous, resident of a certain place from the time of birth You say: THEN you complained it was only once, and demanded a direct connection. and I showed you. I Say: Did you know that one sentence is the only time in Vattel’s book that indigenes (the closest meaning to NBC that can be found) is used? In the next sentence, Vattel continues: “The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.” In French, however, Vattel writes, “Le patrie des peres est donc celle des enfants; & ceut-ci devienment de veritables citoyens par leur simple consentement tacite.” Interestingly, if one looks at the citizenship law of France from the time, one finds: Les citoyens, les vrais et naturels Fran�§ais, suivant la definition de Bacquat, sont ceux qui sont nes dans l’etendue de la domination francaise. The true and natural French citizens are those born within the French dominion. Citoyen = Citizen. It is clear in Vattel that that is what he was using, and it is clear in contemporaneous French law that citoyen is the word one uses when talking about citizens. Finally you say: THEN you complained that that connection wasn't specifically for that particular clause. I say: There is no evidence that Vattel had anything to do with citizenship issues. It has been repeatedly noted that Vattel was referenced in terms of international commerce by the Founders. There is no dispute or controversy on that. Nor is that relevant to the issues of citizenship, the topic of this thread. Surely you know the difference between international commerce and citizenship? So where did the term Natural Born come from? The Founders were smart people, many of them experienced lawyers. They knew that there was an English phrase Natural Born Subject, which had been in use in England for 400 years. This same phrase, Natural born subject was used in the Constitutions and Charters of the colonies. Despite there existing this phrase, Natural Born Subject, that everyone knew, that had been used by each of the colonies, and which formed the backbone of many of the legal Arguments the Revolutionaries made in supporting the Revolution, YOU think they scrapped the meaning of natural born. Now here’s where it gets outlandishly dumb – instead of choosing a different phrase than the one that was 400 years old, and in common use, natural born, according to you and other misguided individuals, the Framers used the SAME phrase and expected that people would just get that they meant to refer to Vattel’s book- even though Vattel’s book was in French and never said natural born citizen! I with I could have put all that in capital letters and shout it out to you. The Founders didn’t once say to themselves, “maybe we should use ‘indigenes,’ like Vattel did. They didn’t once write down, “We mean ‘natural born citizen’ to be completely different from ‘natural born subject.’ We know it might cause confusion but we really like that Vattel guy and we’re sure that if he was translated right, he would have written it that way.” In your world, the framers were complete imbeciles, aren’t they?

Nice cite.

Unfortunately, Reid v. Covert was decided (in 1957!) by a 4-2-2 split court, with only four justices proclaiming your absolute, 2 ruling to free Mrs. Covert but NOT to declare the Supremacy Clause, in effect, void, and 2 outright traitors.

This decision was formed under pressure of the Bricker Amendment, which had almost achieved 2/3 votes in each House, and which would have unquestionably passed and been ratified if the decision had gone the other way. This Amendment (a very good one, BTW) would have clarified the Supremacy Clause the way you (and I) want.

Do you seriously believe that today’s court would uphold Reid if a new case were on point? I don’t.

YOU think they scrapped the meaning of natural born.

I never said any such thing.

It was my belief that you were contending that -

1) The federal government had the authority to decide who was or was not a natural born citizen, and

2) That the Founders considered jus soli citizenship and jus sanguinis citzenship to be the same thing.

Is that belief in error?

-----

There were MANY English translations of Vattel’s book available throughout the world before the Constitution was written but the words NBC were not interposed until 1797.

Um. The link I've been giving says its the 1758 edition. You also forget most of the Founders WERE fluent in French. Are you saying they did a poor job of translation?

The later English version contained the term natural born citizen whereas older ones said 'natives or indigenes'.

You again bypass the civilization factor.

Natives or indigenes just means indigenous, a generic term for 'people'. Whether those people are nomads scratching out a living off the land or living in the most shining example of civilization, they're still 'indigenous'.

It's 'the country of the father is the country of the children' that's the important part. If that father lives in a country recognized AS a country by other countries, and he is a recognized part of that country, he is a 'citizen'. His citizenship passes down to his children just as HIS fathers citizenship passed down to him.

It does NOT include children of foreigners or aliens who just happen to be in the county when they made their appearance OR children who are born before their parents become naturalized citizens themselves.

As Vattel said they are in the country, but not of it.

Book I / CHAP. XIX

§ 212. Citizens and natives.
........ 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.

-------

The Senate ordered copies of Vattel's Law of Nature and Nations on March 10, 1794.

Ordered, That the Secretary purchase Blackstone's Commentaries, and Vattel's Law of Nature and Nations, for the use of the Senate.
Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, Vol 2, page 44

So it's almost a certainty THAT was the edition they were using concerning the definition of NBC in 1797.

The Library disables links, but the page can be found here:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsj&fileName=002/llsj002.db&recNum=42&itemLink=D?hlaw:13:./temp/~ammem_LF5V::%230020043&linkText=1

-----

Please have the courtesy to format future posts. I don't expect you to wade through a massive, unparagraphed rant, so you really shouldn't expect me to either.

Um. The link I’ve been giving says its the 1758 edition. You also forget most of the Founders WERE fluent in French. Are you saying they did a poor job of translation?

Apparently there were many editions of the book. I showed in my previous post a copy of the 1760 English version which was available in America. Natural Born Citizen cannot be found there as you could see. Vattel’s book did not contain the exact words “NBC” until ten years AFTER the Constitution was ratified. The English version showed NBC but the French version never changed. Why it changed then I have no idea and no one else does.

I’m sure the framers spoke French - certainly much better than I can but the only two words pertaining to citizenship in Vattel’s paragraph are “naturels” and “indigenes.” Nowhere can be found in the French version the words “Citoyen né naturel” which translated would be NBC. The rest of the paragraph speaks of requiring a parent citizen.

If the Founding Fathers had meant Vattel’s meaning when they required NBC for Presidential eligibility, then logically, one would expect them to have used Vattel’s terminology — either “naturel,” or — even better,“indigene,” which is a recognized word in English as well as in French.

Instead they went with Natural Born Citizen - a phrase well known to everyone for the past 400 years. The framers conscienciously went with the “of the soil” interpretation without adding “parental citizenship required. In other words instead of going with “Citoyen né naturel” which means Natural Born Citizen they went with the traditional English version of citizenship.

As you say, The federal government had the authority to decide who was or was not a natural born citizen, and they went with the English, soil only required.

You say: That the Founders considered jus soli citizenship and jus sanguinis citzenship to be the same thing.

I say jus soli ONLY which was the 400 year tradition that was written that way in every colony’s charter or constitution. This is what the people knew.

FINALLY and I’m done: Conservatives have long held that under strict construction you should not read into a law or into the Constitution something that it does not say….that is the province of Liberals. I fear that quite a few so-called conservatives are joining the ranks of Liberals with a desire to change the meaning of parts of the Constitution; they wish to add to it what wasn’t meant by the framers. If the framers meant to they would have written for presidential qualifications: NBC with citizen parents. They left off those last three words for a reason and on purpose. As far as I’m concerned and apparently the court system agrees, there are only two categories of citizen: 1 NBC and 2 Naturalized. NBC can run for Pres, Naturalized citizens cannot. It is that simple. If OBUMMER was born in HI then he is a NBC. What we have to prove is he was born in Kenya and forged his BC, or better yet, just vote the bum out November.

Consider this. If the qualification for President did require one to have citizen parents, then they would have to produce their parents BC’s as evidence and that has NEVER been done.

Have a good evening.

Vattel’s book did not contain the exact words “NBC” until ten years AFTER the Constitution was ratified.

Your repeatedly fixate on a single interpretation of single word of Vattel's while completely ignoring the definition.

But, as you pointed out in previous posts, the Founders ALSO used Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, which was completed years before the Constitution was even written:

BOOK I. / CHAPTER THE TENTH
OF THE PEOPLE, WHETHER ALIENS, DENIZENS, OR NATIVES.
THE first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it.

Vattels' definition has the same definition as Blackstones. Whether the word is native, indigenes, indigenous or natural born subject or natural born citizen, the concept was the same ...the country of the fathers was the country of the children.

Contrary to the popular belief, the 14th Amendment granted NO jus soli citizenship, and the criteria for inherited, natural born citizenship was still being acknowledged in 1866:

"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
Senator Jacob Howard, co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.
center column halfway down
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11%20

To try to say the Founders actually meant jus soli, or soil-based citizenship based on a modern day interpretation of a single word is ludicrous.

It wasn't until Wong Kim Ark that the concept of jus soli citizenship ever even came up, and even as unconstitutional as THAT finding was, the judge STILL differentiated between soil-based and blood-based citizenship.

------

I do find it odd the slip of paper you show not only uses French words in an English translation, but is a piss-poor job of typesetting. Unusual for craftsmanship of the age as books were quite precious.

You say its from the 1760 version, but all I find are the 1797 version which say they're reprints of the 1758 version.... and they all say natural-born.

Do please provide a link....that isn't a foaming-at-the-mouth 'anti birther' site.

---------

You say: That the Founders considered jus soli citizenship and jus sanguinis citizenship to be the same thing.

And do not EVER.....EVER twist my words to say something I never said again!

This is my last reply to you MamaTexan but here is the info you wanted.

English Editions of The Law of Nations

Vattel’s Law of Nations was translated anonymously into English several times in the eighteenth century. The first edition of 1760 was based on the French original Droit des gens of 1758. A Dublin translation of 1787 is remarkably fluent and elegant, but it does not include the substantive notes of the original nor, more importantly, the notes added to the posthumous French edition of 1773 and intended by Vattel for a second edition he did not live to complete. Several English editions, including the 1916 Classics of International Law edition, are similarly flawed and based on the edition of 1760. However, two English editions from the end of the eighteenth century include Vattel’s later thoughts. One, from 1793, contains a pagination error. This has been corrected in the revised version, London 1797, and the latter forms the basis for the present edition. The 1797 edition has the benefit of a detailed table of contents and margin titles for subsections.

Source: http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2246&chapter=212414&layout=html&Itemid=27

You say: I do find it odd the slip of paper you show not only uses French words in an English translation, but is a piss-poor job of typesetting. Unusual for craftsmanship of the age as books were quite precious.

You say its from the 1760 version, but all I find are the 1797 version which say they’re reprints of the 1758 version.... and they all say natural-born.

(OF COURSE ALL YOU CAN FIND IS THE 1797 VERSION because all prior version dont say NBC and you don’t WANT to find them because then you’d have to face the facts which obviously you don’t want to do. What is it that just doesn’t penetrate your skull?)

Do please provide a link....that isn’t a foaming-at-the-mouth ‘anti birther’ site.

Mama, have you ever read a book from the 1700’s that didn’t look like that? Give me a break. If you want to call the anti-birther posters of that page liars, be my guest. If you show me any translation prior to 1797 that has the words natural born citizen I’ll call them liars as well...Oh, that’s right, you can’t find an edition prior to 1797.

How about this. Show me any FRENCH version of Vattel’s book that contains “Citoyen né naturel” which means Natural born citizen and I’ll come down to Texas and wash your windows.

Since I can’t seem to enclose an image without making every paragraph run together take a look at the next post which is
a copy of the 1787 translation which still doesn’t say Natural Born Citizen. I have to admit those obots sure went out of their way to get these images. If I lived near a class library I’d go check it out myself but I’m assuming that they wouldn’t lie and that it just makes sense to me (AND OBVIOUSLY EVERY JUDGE IN THIS COUNTRY) that the founders went with the commonly known form of citizenship that they lived with for many, many years before the Revolution.

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.