Posted on 12/16/2008 4:19:57 PM PST by briarbey b
Emmerich de Vattel was a Swiss jurist who attained world preeminence in international law. This was primarily the result of his great foundational work, which he published in 1758. His monumental work - The Law of Nations - applied a theory of natural law to international relations. His scholarly, foundational, and systematic explanation of the Law of Nations was especially influential in the United States.
The Law of Nations was so influnntial in the United States because his principles of liberty and equality coincided with the ideals expressed in the US Declaration of Independence. In particular, his definitions in terms of Law governing nations regarding citizenship, defense of neutrality, and his rules for commerce between neutral and belligerent states were considered authoritative in the United States.
Many have said that de Vattel's Law of Nations was THE primary reference and defining book used by the framers of the US Constitution. It is really not possible to overstate the influence of de Vattel's Law of Nations as the primary reference book in the drafting of the US Constitution. Emmerich de Vattel's Law of Nations is almost beyond comparison in its value as a defining document regarding US Constitution intent and interpretation. The Law of Nations, or the Principles of Natural Law, published in 1758, is the first, and ONLY, definitive work the Framers of the US Constitution used for the 'Natural Born Citizen' phrase they placed within the Constitution. It nails what the Constitution means by the "natural born citizen" phrase of Section 1, Article 2, of the US Constitution.
It is amazing how perfectly, precisely, and explicitly what Emmerich de Vattel, wrote in paragraph 212, of book 1, chapter 19, of The Law of Nations entitled CITIZENS AND NATIONS, applies to the Obama FRAUD. Quite clearly and explicitly it defines why Barry Soetoro, AKA Barack Heussein Obama Junior, can NOT possibly be qualified to be the President of the United States. Obama MUST be disqualified from the office of President of the United States according to the US Constitution Section 1 Article 2.
That is simply the only thing the Rule of Law could conclude. All US military personal and every other American under oath to protect and defend the US Constitution will be duty bound to remove the fraudulent usurper. This situation is REGARDLESS of votes, electors, media blackouts, high profile embarrassments, state court decisions, supreme court actions or inaction, birth certificates real or forged, or any other documents - Obama can NOT LEGALLY BE The US President. Fraud and illegality has become customary under the Bush-Clinton-Bush syndicate of sudden destruction.
Emmerich de Vattel's explanation of "Natural Born Citizen" given in his 1759 benchmark work, used, and so often quoted, by the framers of the US constitution, makes the understanding simple, explicit, clear, definite, exact, precise, and strict. In the CITIZENS AND NATIONS, paragraph #212, de Vattel says: "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as a matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. THE COUNTRY OF THE FATHERS IS THEREFORE THAT OF THE CHILDREN."
No documentation is required. Everyone should understand and KNOW the answer to the question of what country is the country of which Obama was a natural born citizen. It is IMPOSSIBLE for Barry Obama, Barry Soetoro, or Barack Hussein Obama Junior, to be a natural born United States citizen. He can NOT POSSIBLY be a "natural born citizen" of the US because his father, Barack Hussein Obama Senior, was a Citizen of UK and/or Kenya. Barcak Hussein Obama Junior could be a natural born British Citizen or a natural born Kenyan Citizen. There is NO possible way Barack Hussein Obama Junior could be a natural born US Citizen; because, at the time of Barack Hussein Obama Junior was born, his father, Barack Hussein Obama Senior was a British and/or Kenyan Citizen. Whether Barack Hussein Obama Junior was born in Hawaii, Kenya, or the moon, is irrelevant. Birth documents, real or forged, are irrelevant. Yes, even VOTES ARE IRRELEVANT. Even Supreme Court action, or inaction, is irrelevant. It is simply FRAUD and illegal for Barack Hussein Obama Junior to be put in the office of US President by any means or reason.
This explains Obama's strange behavior in all of his documents and records being SEALED and why he has already spent over $800,000.00 saying NO DOCUMENTS WILL BE ALLOWED UNSEALED or made public.
Barack Hussein Obama Junior is at the epicenter of the greatest national disaster in the history of the United States. NOTHING which Obama would ever do in the office of US President could ever be anything other than FRAUD and ILLEGAL.
I like the way brother Ted said it - The consequences of the Supreme Court declining to address the US Constitution's "natural born citizen" clause on the morning of Monday 12/15/08 — thereafter enabling the College of Electors to transform the crisis from "law" to "political and Congressional", leading to the `inauguration' of Mr. Obama, are nothing less than catastrophic. Lawsuits by members of the military challenging his `commander in chief' status are INEVITABLE. And a military takeover to oust the "usurper" may be inevitable as well. Where is the media? This is no "tin foil hat" joke.
AN-OBAMA-NATION CAN BE NOTHING BUT FRAUDULENT AND ILLEGAL.
True. But only the majority opinions take effect.
If you would like to have a fruitful discussion, you might want to comment on what YOU believe the framers intent was in drafting the 'natural born' directive for those that wished to serve as president: as that was the substance of my post.
Well since you asked...
I think the framers recognized two types of citizenship - citizen at birth or natural born citizen, and naturalized citizen. Those are the only two forms that are mentioned or implied in the Constitution. I do not believe the founders ever contemplated a form of 'super citizen' among those born in this country. I believe that the Supreme Court was right and expressed the founders intent when they ruled in the Ark case that that children born here, regardless of their parents nationality, were citizens at birth. I believe this because the precedent for such a decision goes back before this country was founded, even before Blackstone wrote as much in his commentaries on English law. And as educated men, and since many were also lawyers, the founders would be well aware of that and if they meant otherwise then they would have expressed that intent somehwere. But they didn't. As a result I believe 'natural born' and 'citizen at birth' are, and were meant to be, synonymous. And that any person born in this country, regadless of the nationality of their parents and except for the exceptions mentioned in the Ark case, is eligible to be president.
In the Ark decision, Justice Gray did state that the U.S. recognized two classes of citizen - citizen at birth and naturalized citizen. Obviously the intent is that citizen at birth and natural born citizen are synonymous.
This has always been my understanding as well, and what I have maintained consistently. So far there has been much fussin and hollerin, but no actual rebuttal to this point.
There are two types of citizens in the USA, naturalized and natural born. Natural born citizen means that by the natural act of being born, you had citizenship conferred upon you, and are thus a “natural born citizen” rather than a “naturalized” citizen who had to go through a legal process to attain citizenship.
Yes. Indeed. I have often wondered why he would have shut off the access to the academic files...until it occurred to me that part of what may have gained special treatment for his admission in the first place...was the minority status and placement prioritization demonstrably given to those being of FOREIGN origin...
And those records may indeed have had, in his applications and so forth,...admissions' against interest by Obama, of foreign origin...contradicting the current version of his status.
By that same logic, then, he should not have to mount any legal defense to prevent its release.
Well that doesn't make any sense.
“And that any person born in this country, regardless of the nationality of their parents and except for the exceptions mentioned in the Ark case, is eligible to be president.”
Fair enough.
The problem is obama’s performance seems to contradict your assessment of his status as a ‘natural born’ citizen.
If he were born in Hawaii why doesn’t he just release his vault ‘BC’ and be done with it?
I had to send copies of my vital regards in order to get my California Real Estate license and undergo a full FBI background check too!
Even a minimum wage security guard has to show a valid BC as a prerequisite to his/her employment.
Certainly you would agree that it is not unreasonable for us to expect the same from one who wishes to serve as our president?
If the above remedy for this mishap — release of Obama’s vital records — is not within the purview of the law, then what compelling recourse do we have but to apply social and ‘other’ means of pressure?
Let us say, for the sake of argument, that these lawsuits are without LEGAL merit.
The reality is that these lawsuits are slowly leaking out to the general public (no thanks to the MSM) where they (the public) can form their own opinions as to the uprightness and transparency of the Obama Juggernaut.
You do agree that a well informed public is preferable to an ill informed public — as a buffer against government tyranny?
In view of the above I would be hard pressed to imagine why any American — well seated in our traditions — would not champion such efforts to bring this issue to the public square.
A case could be made that by not clearing these ever mounting doubts, Obama is militating against the good faith of those citizens that have voted for him — and even those that have not supported him.
As a duly elected president he would — as per the constitution (and his own words) — be a servant of ALL the people.
Again, his actions would seem counter productive for a man who had nothing to hide.
Therefore, many of us, not unreasonably, harbor grave doubts as to the probity if not the eligibility of our future President.
The nagging question remains:
Why doesn’t Obama for the sake of unity and national cohesion — even the furtherance of HIS own support — release his vital records?
Thank you for your reply.
STE=Q
He has not provided any evidence that he was born in Hawaii. I don’t know where he was born, all he has to do is provide a Certificate of Live Birth from Hawaii and this ends. Why won’t he do it?
Because he doesn’t have to.
By that same logic, then, he should not have to mount any legal defense to prevent its release.
***Bump for using later (well, it’s actually stealing, but you’ll forgive me)
Even a minimum wage security guard has to show a valid BC as a prerequisite to his/her employment.
Certainly you would agree that it is not unreasonable for us to expect the same from one who wishes to serve as our president?
***I can’t understand why the CertifiGate trolls keep handwaving over that issue as if it didn’t exist. They never answer the question, and yet they’re undeterred in their attempts to pull other FReepers into their pit of hell.
Can't the numerous Hawaii hospitals where Stanley Obama/Dunham was NOT a patient on Aug. 4, 1961 simply legally say that she was NOT a patient at the hospital?
1. For instance, let's say a reporter is doing a story on me,John Mirse,(just my screenname) who recently died .
2. The reporter walks into a Hawaii hospital and explains to the hospital administrator that he is doing a story on me, who recently died.
The reporter explains that John Mirse was a local hero back in Kansas (not where I really live), and it seems that he spent some time in a Hawaii hospital when he was in the military during the Vietnam War.
The reporter explains that he came to Hawaii to try to find out if any Hawaii hospital had a record of a John Mirse being in a Hawaii hospital during the Vietnam war.
3. Do you really think that hospital personnel will say nothing, or do you think that the hospital personnel will cooperate with the reporter and at least check hospital records to see if a John Mirse was ever a patient at that Hawaii hospital?
4. I say that the Hawaii hospital would have no legal restraints to at least tell the reporter whether or not a John Mirse was ever a patient at the hospital, the main reason being that I was dead.
5. My point is this: On the one hand, it is one thing for a Hawaii hospital to say that it cannot reveal details of why a person was in that particular hospital, but, on the other hand, it is another thing to simply say whether or not a person was ever a patient in that hospital, especially if the patient is now dead, or, if the person was never a patient in that particular hospital to begin with.
Because as far as he's concerned he's done all that's required. He's released his certificate of birth and the state of Hawaii has said it has his original birth certificate on file. That's already more than prior presidents have done. So from Obama's point of view he's done with the matter, and all the lawsuits for him to produce this or produce that is seen by him as frivolous. For him to agree now to voluntarily produce more would be an admission that he didn't do enough or, worse, an admission that doubts about what he has produced are valid. So he isn't going to produce anything without a court order to do so first. And he's going to fight the law suits in court. And why shouldn't he? He hasn't lost a single one to date.
I had to send copies of my vital regards in order to get my California Real Estate license and undergo a full FBI background check too!
Obama isn't applying for a California Real Estate license so whatever hoops Sacramento has you jump through is irrelevant. What would be relevant would be if you can point to a law requiring presidential candidates to produce their birth certificates and what agency is tasked with checking them.
Certainly you would agree that it is not unreasonable for us to expect the same from one who wishes to serve as our president?
I expect them to follow the law. Right now I can't point to where Obama is violating it.
If the above remedy for this mishap — release of Obama’s vital records — is not within the purview of the law, then what compelling recourse do we have but to apply social and ‘other’ means of pressure?
A compelling pressure that I could think of would be to provide concrete evidence that Obama is lying and that he was not born in Hawaii like he claims. That's about the only way I can think that a court will order Obama to produce anything.
You do agree that a well informed public is preferable to an ill informed public — as a buffer against government tyranny?
Generally. But there is a segment of the public that'll believe anything. Tens of thousands believe the government shot down TWA 800. Tens of thousands believe the government was responsible for bringing down the World Trade Center on 9/11/01. One could argue how big a buffer they are against government tyranny.
In view of the above I would be hard pressed to imagine why any American — well seated in our traditions — would not champion such efforts to bring this issue to the public square.
Perhaps one might need a reason to do so? Something other than internet rumor?
A case could be made that by not clearing these ever mounting doubts, Obama is militating against the good faith of those citizens that have voted for him — and even those that have not supported him.
I doubt Obama is as worried about that as much as you are. Though I'm sure he appreciates your concern.
Therefore, many of us, not unreasonably, harbor grave doubts as to the probity if not the eligibility of our future President.
Never have so many doubted so much with so little to back it up. With apologies to Sir Winston Churchill.
Well I can't speak for anyone but myself but I do it because it's so much fun tweaking people like you.
Well, let it be recorded in history that we didn't leave our country... our country left us!
STE=Q
Well, let it be recorded in history that we didn’t leave our country... our country left us!
AGREED!!! ALL the wars..all the blood shed to protect something that will be destroyed without a single shot being fired. How tragic and what a waste of life that is.
So ... as long as the foreign dictators’s wife conceives the baby on American soil, you are okay with the child returning to the U.S. some day so daddy can buy him an American election ... all due to the “citizenship” ruling in Wong Kim Ark? That is liberal loony left speak. That is the antithesis of the Framers’ intent as it relates to the natural-born requirement for the office of POTUS. Had the Framers penned that into the Constitution, we could have been usurped legally back under British rule as early as the election of 1812! You are reading an awful lot into the Wong Kim Ark decision that is not there. You can pitch it, but don’t expect conservatives to buy it.
I havn't the time or inclination to address your non answers to my questions...
Except where you wrote, as follows:
"He's released his certificate of birth and the state of Hawaii has said it has his original birth certificate on file."
You know as well as we all know that a 'certificate of(live) birth' does not prove that he was born in Hawaii!
In Hawaii, a Certificate of Live Birth is different from a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth.
Such a Certificate could be obtained up to one year from the date of the child’s birth.
Also, the vault (long Version) birth certificate allows the birth in another State or another country to be registered in Hawaii.
Therefore, the state of Hawaii saying that his 'original birth certificate is on file' does not prove that his birth was in Hawaii.
This was explained to you many many times!
Why are you -- deliberately -- spreading misinformation?
I have never -- EVER!-- accused ANYONE of being a troll!
For you I will make an exception!
STE=Q
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code passed by Congress under authority of Article I section 8 of the Constitution has determined that “citizens of the United States at birth:” include
Anyone born inside the United States
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
I can’t understand why the CertifiGate trolls keep handwaving over that issue as if it didn’t exist.
Non-Sequitur:
"Well I can't speak for anyone but myself but I do it because it's so much fun tweaking people like you."
Did Non-Sequitur just admit to being a troll?
STE=Q
Unbiases sources! HaHaHaHaHa!!! Obama’s sycophants are crawling all over the internet erasing and fixing and adding and subtracting! They probably have a couple just re-writing stuff on Wikipedia daily!
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.