Posted on 10/07/2009 11:23:53 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
By Alan Keyes
October 7, 2009
Loyal to Liberty
I just received a call from Orly Taitz, my attorney in the case seeking proof of Obama's eligibility for the Office of President of the United States. Judge Carter has released a statement declaring that the dates he set for the hearing and trial on the eligibility issue are confirmed, and it will move forward as scheduled. Apparently he was not swayed by the Obama lawyer's arguments.
Oh golly...we're continuously told by Birthers that the definition was planted in the minds of our Founding Fathers because of what Vattel wrote. But according to the information posted on this Website none of the versions of Vattel's book available to the Founding Fathers had that definition in it. So if the Founding Fathers meant for a natural-born citizen to be defined as one having a U.S. citizen father then where did they get that from?
What part of “Reference Material” don’t you understand???
What part of "Vattel wasn't talking about English Common Law" do you not understand?
Please don’t lump me into any particular group, thank you.
I have my own opinions, derived by my own study of relevant issues. My own definition of what a birther is, is inherent in its name, the demand for the President of the United States to be qualified under the terms of the Consititution.
Any, and all other issues, are separate.
You have to catch the ball first, before you can throw it...
I am only concerned with what the Constitution of the United States says, not Vattel.
The Declaration and Its Importancehttp://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Declaration_of_Independence.aspxThe Declaration of Independence is the most important of all American historical documents. It is essentially a partisan document, a justification of the American Revolution presented to the world; but its unique combination of general principles and an abstract theory of government with a detailed enumeration of specific grievances and injustices has given it enduring power as one of the great political documents of the West. After stating its purpose, the opening paragraphs (given here in the form used in the engrossed copy) assert the fundamental American ideal of government, based on the theory of natural rights , which had been held by, among others, John Locke, Emerich de Vattel, and Jean Jacques Rousseau.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...
Declaration of Independencehttp://www.answers.com/topic/united-states-declaration-of-independenceIn one vibrant paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson managed to compress both a résumé of American constitutional theory that justified the struggle for independence and a précis of a revolutionary, republican theory of government. “All men are created equal”; they enjoy “unalienable Rights” (this repudiated arguments by Thomas Hobbes and William Blackstone that people surrender their natural rights when they leave the state of nature); these rights include “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” (a liberal and literary improvement on John Locke's triad of life, liberty, and property); governments exist to protect those rights; governments are created by “the consent of the governed” (the compact theory); the people retain the right “to alter or to abolish” government when it violates its ends, “and to institute new Government” to secure the people's “Safety and Happiness” (the commonwealth theory). In their totality, these concepts provided a comprehensive statement of popular sovereignty.
Vattel's work in original French (a language familiar to the framers): 
Translating the french text:
"les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parents citoyens"
To English, gives this:
"the natural, or indigenous, are those born in the country, parents who are citizens"
The delegates to the Constitutional Convention read and referenced Vattel's work (From James Madison's Notes):
WEDNESDAY JUNE 27, 1787http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_627.aspIN CONVENTION
In order to prove that individuals in a State of nature are equally free & independent he read passages from Locke, Vattel, Lord Summers- Priestly. To prove that the case is the same with States till they surrender their equal sovereignty, he read other passages in Locke & Vattel, and also Rutherford: that the States being equal cannot treat or confederate so as to give up an equality of votes without giving up their liberty:
Scholar, soldier, statesman: if James Madison represents the cool, contemplative head of the early republic's body politic, then Alexander Hamilton is undoubtedly its passionate, fiercely palpitating hearthttp://www.thefreelibrary.com/Scholar,+soldier,+statesman:+if+James+Madison+represents+the+cool,...-a0143720373... The War for Independence
After the war, Hamilton settled in New York and established a thriving law practice. Hamilton had educated himself in legal theory and looked to two authorities as his beacons in matters of law: Emmerich de Vattel and William Blackstone Sir William Blackstone (originally pronounced Blexstun) (10 July 1723 – 14 February 1780) was an English jurist and professor who produced the historical and analytic treatise on the common law called Commentaries on the Laws of England (it is interesting to take note that these two leading lights of legal thought were equally influential on Hamilton's sometime collaborator, sometime adversary, James Madison). Hamilton admired and appreciated Vattel's forceful, succinct, and direct style--a style Hamilton had adopted as his own.
...
Constitutional Convention...
Hamilton, echoing lessons he learned from de Vattel, declared at the convention of 1787 that there are three purposes of government: first, provide for the "great purposes of commerce, revenue, agriculture"; second, promote "domestic tranquility and happiness"; and third, demonstrate "sufficient stability and strength to make us respectable abroad."
Historical Practice and the Contemporary Debate Over Customary International LawMuch more here:...
A related debate in the early Republic, however, suggests even greater hostility to the idea of federal common lawmaking powers. As Justice Souter has pointed out, "the founding generation . . . join[ed] . . . an appreciation of its immediate and powerful common-law heritage with caution in settling that inheritance on the political systems of the new Republic."10 The colonial and early state governments carefully limited their reception of English common law to those principles that were applicable to local conditions.11 Citizens of the young Republic often viewed the common law with considerable hostility; after all, they had just fought a revolution to throw off English rule.12
...
This ambivalence played out in debates over ratification of the new national Constitution. All participants seem to have understood that the new federal Constitution did not receive the English common law as part of national law,13 unlike many of the state constitutions. Opponents of ratification went so far as to complain that the proposed document failed to guarantee common law rights.14
...
Hence, "the Framers chose to recognize only particular common-law concepts, such as the writ of habeas corpus, U.S. Const. Art. I, § 9, cl. 2, and the distinction between law and equity, U.S. Const., Amdt. 7, by specific reference in the constitutional text."16 They insisted, however, that any general reception of the English common law into federal law would be "destructive to republican principles."17
And this matter...how?
The Constitution is our Document, and history is history.
Adhere to the Constitution.
So what is your point?
Prove it.
Really? OK, great. The Constitution doesn't say anything about both parents having to be citizens. So we agree then.
"Why are you hung up on where something might have come from. This is nothing more than diversion from the primary goal."
No, that's what the Birthers have been hung up on. Since the simple words "natural born citizen" don't imply anything at all about parents, they've looked for some historical source to read that meaning into the phrase.
"We have a concrete document, by which our country is governed...the “Constitution of the United States”, not a reference document (Vattel)"
Yes we do. Vattel is not the Constitution. We agree.
"Talk to me about the words of the Contitution."
That's what we've been doing.
We do not know whether the marriage to Kezia was “tribal” or civil. Kezia is alive and may testify. Has any credible investigator been given access to the civil marriage files of the corrupt, possibly Obama-protecting Kenya gov’t?
You are assuming that current UK authorities will corrupt themselves to cover for Obama by issuing a transparently false assessment of the Kenya marriage if the facts show there was a marriage (say if Kezia pulls out a 1957 license), as US elites have done for Obama. That is a peculiar notion to me.
BTW, BO Sr was not a former CUKC citizen, he was an actual CUKC citizen when BO Jr was born.
“In the alternative” (should there be “only” a “tribal marriage”) the US now worships at the alter of recognizing diversity that is contrary to traditional Judeo-Christian custom such as marriage between same sexes and self-designation of gender. Are the liberal US political elites going to invalidate a Kenyan marriage sealed with a dowry according to Kezia just because it didn't conform to the technicalities imposed by the former racist exploiting colonial masters?
I’ve assumed nothing whatsoever. I’m merely attempting to explain the wild theory that some of you have embraced, regarding Obama not being born a British citizen.
BHO, Sr. certainly is a former CUKC, since he’s dead.
While your treatise is interesting, it is an exchange more appropriate to constitutional scholars and those studying its ramifications.
What we are dealing with here, and I think your agree, is simply adhearing to the Constitution in its present form.
While interesting, other discussion of this type, clouds the real issue.
Which really is the point, correct? Prove that Obama is qualified to be President of the United States (POTUS), and since he won’t voluntarily provide those documents, proceed to legally make him do so, to precisely force him to do, what he took an oath to do, which is to defend and protect the United States, and uphold its constitution.
The fact that he has broken his oath of office, speaks volumes, and nothing that he does, no matter how good, will count, until he does as he has sworn to do.
Whatever Vatel said or didn't say, meant or didn't mean, is not determinative. Believe with all your heart and soul that the elite select of natural born citizens simply must have a citizen father. Fine. The fact remaining on the table is this—everyone knew Obama didn't have a citizen father when he was a candidate. This country let him run, and he won a clear majority of the votes cast. Any reasonable person who who has spent any time in the legal profession knows there is absolutely zero chance that a court, Supreme or otherwise, will overturn that based on a new and novel interpretation of a phrase that most people have always accepted (with ample common law precedent) as meaning simply “born here.”
If you can prove he wasn't born here, great. Run with it. But this citizen father stuff is an obvious nonstarter. And saying that doesn't make one a RINO, an Obot or a troll. It makes one conservative in the truest and most meaningful sense of the word—facing and accepting reality.
Natural-born citizen
Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”
•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.
* There is an exception in the law — the person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.
The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 USC 1403, the law states that anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was “declared” to be a United States citizen. Note that the terms “natural-born” or “citizen at birth” are missing from this section.
In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that because McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c): “a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person.” Not eveyone agrees that this section includes McCain — but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.
Quote: This country let him run, and he won a clear majority of the votes cast.
This was based, I believe, on fraud. It was presumed that he had been properly Vetted. He, it appears was not, and it was obstructed from the public purposefully.
The American public proceeded in good faith. When it was discovered that their good faith was abused, the rest insued.
Hence your last paragraph. I agree, we are attempting to right a wrong, and put our country back on the right path, nothing more. What is interesting is that we are being prevented, by obscure procedure, to accomplish this discovery by a few, who, with just a little bit of care, can guide the judicial process to clear this up once and for all.
Secondly, one has to wonder, why it is, that this needs to happen at all. Was it OUR failing that he was not properly vetted? Or the fault of those we entrusted to do their jobs with honor for the good of our country, and to uphold the Consitutional responsibilities they were entrusted with?
The crisis which is being continued as a result of Obama not being honest (Mr. Transparency) with the american people, it why we are here, in this position, today.
That sir, is accepting and facing the reality of this situation.
Check it out with TerriK!!!
But everyone knew his father was not a citizen. It wasn't a secret. That didn't depend on someone vetting him.
If one believes Obama truly wasn't born in the U.S or otherwise isn't actually a citizen and somehow concealed that, then I can understand the belief that a fraud occurred. The difficulty is in proving that. I personally am hard pressed to see how one can, in a manner consistent with an actionable threshold in court, with the cumulative evidence currently available.
I think people truly bothered by this should be pressing their elected representatives to establish criteria at the state level to appear on the ballot in the first place. That way, if you want to see Obama’s long form birth certificate, you can in 2012 (presuming he runs again). This country has survived far worse than three more years of an Obama presidency, and respecting the rule of law has been a big part of that.
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.