Posted on 04/15/2023 5:13:14 PM PDT by CDR Kerchner
(Apr. 15, 2023) — The key sentence in the original 1758 French edition written by Vattel:
“Les naturels, ou indigénes, sont ceux qui sont nés dans le pays, de parents citoyens.”
First let’s do a direct translation of the key sentence using this online French to English site:
https://translate.yandex.com/?source_lang=fr&target_lang=en&text=Les%20naturels%2C%20ou%20indigenes%2C%20sont%20ceux%20qui%20sont%20nes%20dans%20le%20pays%2C%20de%20parents%20citoyens
The key sentence translated to English by that online translation site is:
“The natural, or indigenous, are those who were born in the country, from citizen parents.”
... continue reading at: https://www.thepostemail.com/2023/04/15/my-translation-of-a-key-sentence-in-emer-de-vattels-1758-treatise-on-natural-law-in-section-212-des-citoyens-et-naturels/
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
Oh crap. Would you just give it up. Or maybe quit being descriptive, and translate the next paragraph, about those other places, like ENGLAND???
Deceptive not descriptive
I get, eat, drink and be merry.
Every man should have his hobbies.
Sheridan`s 1791 defines “Natural, ,,,, native, original inhabitant”
That is what it was in the US until it needed to be scrapped for Obama. Now “natural born citizen can include anyone on the planet. He would probably need to visit America a couple of times and exhibit his Marxist bona fides for the benefit of the Deep State to run for election.
Vattel’s book “The Law of Nations” is on my list of important works that needs to be (fully) recorded as an audiobook. Not sure when I’ll get it done though.
Of course it doesn’t “nullify” Obama’s Presidency. But the fact that legitimate objections to Obama’s eligibility were not raised on the basis of this work on Natural Law and John Jay’s correspondence shows how far we have drifted politically and linguistically from the society that wrote the Constitution, and how restoring that Constitution would require upending an enormous amount of current law and current received opinion.
Much confusion on the issue was created by William Rawle in his book "A View of the Constitution." He explicitly said that just being born in the country made you a citizen.
He was lying. I researched it quite a bit, and that is the only conclusion I can come to. The entire Supreme Court of Pennsylvania told him he was wrong about this, but that's what he wrote in his book anyway.
If you want to know who screwed up our understanding of the meaning of "natural born citizen", it was William Rawle.
Of course it doesn’t “nullify” Obama’s Presidency. But the fact that legitimate objections to Obama’s eligibility were not raised on the basis of this work on Natural Law and John Jay’s correspondence shows how far we have drifted politically and linguistically from the society that wrote the Constitution, and how restoring that Constitution would require upending an enormous amount of current law and current received opinion.
And about this you are exactly right. People today do not care what the truth is, and the same can be said of the Civil War. They don't care what the truth is.
I love reading their comments. It is like having a front-row seat at the Sovereign Citizen Sanitarium! Yeah, I know it is like paying 10 cents to see the Reptile Girl at the freak show, and I should be ashamed of myself, but they are such a bunch of entertaining loonies! I keep waiting for one of the nincompoops to come out with -”I read a dictionary, and it said “natural” meant nekkid!” Sooo, only nekkid people can be president!”
You are correct that William Rawles, a person who became a prominent Pennsylvania lawyer was responsible for what today we call misinformation about original intent and meaning regarding the constitutional term of “natural born Citizen”. He did not serve militarily in the revolution and was too young, still too unknown, and on the wrong side of events to participate in the Constitutional Convention. He advocated the enforcement of British statutes and British common law in PA. He wanted to have enforced in Pennsylvania things such as his opinion on the meaning of “natural born Citizen” (nbC) that one only had to be born in the USA without regards to the citizenship of the parents. He was a person who was raised by a somewhat infamous Loyalist family who was totally against the revolution and aided and abetted the British while they occupied Philadelphia during the war. However being a clever lawyer wanting to advance his legal career in the new nation, he saddled up with a lot of Patriots to further his career after the British lost. He was quite a successful lawyer in Philadelphia PA but he was not at all successful in selling a lot of his still lingering loyalties to, and arguments and opinions on British statutes and common law, in cases before the Judges of the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, especially on the “natural born Citizen” subject. They did not buy his argument at all on that issue. You can read about it in this linked to report prepared for the Judges of the [PA] Supreme Court in 1817 by Samuel Roberts: https://archive.org/details/digestofselectbr00robe However, even though he lost in the PA courts with his opinions and arguments as to enforcing British laws on the (nbC) term, he continued to write about his losing idea and argument for years after losing in the courts. So he wrote that work of his and left his losing thoughts and ideas on (nbC) for the Progressives leftists of today to hang their hats on.
IMO, the biggest difference between Rawle's and the other 3 Views is that he tried to make Allegiance emanate from citizenship, while the others understood that citizenship comes from Allegiance.
If there is another side to this debate, I’d like to hear it. Otherwise, case closed. Obama’s Presidency was illegitimate. Some others who aspire today to become President are not eligible.
Yet I've seen people try to argue that the 'or' in the sentence is used as an either or, indicating two different types of 'natural born' citizens, the first merely being born IN a country while the second was born OF it.
He was deliberately lying. He had been told by the judges of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania that he was wrong, "Negro Flora v. Joseph Graisberry".
Why did he persist? Well I think i've found the answer. If he could convince everyone to adopt the idea that being born on the soil would make you a citizen, every slave would have to be set free on this basis.
He was a prominent abolitionist and became president of the Pennsylvania abolition society.
He wasn't arguing for jus soli because he knew it to be correct, he was arguing for it in an effort to free slaves.
He was lying for what he believed to be a just cause.
Mockery? And have you bothered to do some research yourself?
It is good to see you posting again.
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.