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.
You are correct, that Emerich de Vattel did not, himself, create definition of the term natural-born citizen as relates to citizenry under a constitutional republic. He compiled the body of Natural Law, then widely known as The Law Of Nations, into two volumes, published as The Law of Nations; or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, initially in French, and then in English, in 1758. That volume contained the definition of the term natural-born citizen, the very term that was inserted into the Constitution. The term Natural-born subject was not inserted into the Constitution.
Vattel's influences were broad, coming from some of the most respected, influential and studied philosophers of the day, such as Liebniz and Spinoza, going all the way back to Rome. Vattel was cited by the future Founders of this country, as early as 1764, by John Quincy Adams, by Samuel Adams and by James Otis. He was also cited later by better-known Founders such as Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and the man who became our very first Chief Justice Of The Supreme Court, John Jay.
As far as the influence of English conceptions regarding citizenship at birth, you discount a strong Dutch influence in the American colonies, and also discount the fact that the new Nation sought to distance and separate itself and its citizenry from all prior claims, which were a threat from the very English who claimed them as natural-born subjects.
There was a war fought over England's competing claims of citizenship, in 1812. The War Of 1812 was fought because England was seizing citizens off our shores and conscripting them, under their claim of perpetual allegiance as natural-born subjects.
Our elected leaders, our sailors, our soldiers, our merchants at sea and our citizenry as a whole, were under threat of arrest and conscription, from the onset of the Revolution, until 1812. Over 6,000 U.S. citizens were captured by England, leading up to and provoking war in that year.
So, in light of this, how can you honestly believe the Founders accepted the notion of perpetual allegiance under the conceptualization of feudal liege, as represented by the term natural-born subject?
They didn't accept it; the concept was the subject of popular derision, termed "perpetual nonsense." There was lengthy and occasionally heated debate over the matter, and you can read it in the here and now, via Congressional Record. It's available on The Founders' Constitution.
Search The Founders' Constitution For "Perpetual Allegiance"
I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be rude, but you are really confused.
We weren't talking about current statutes. I didn't say anything about current statutes. I'm responding to YOUR own point about Blackstone, so it's Blackstone I'm talking about.
The Blackstone quote you provided is about children born outside of the country, but you are using it to try to make a point about being born inside. Do you see how that can't work?
"... but NOT in the eyes of the Framers, or the British Crown, both using common law for a British Subject — Barack Hussein Obama SR"
In the eyes of the Framers, the British Crown, and British and US Common Law, someone born inside the country is a natural born citizen/subject.
Via records of the Constitutional Convention, I should have said, rather than Congressional Record.
You're stating opinion, and an ill-informed opinion at that.
No, it isn't possible to guarantee allegiance that way. History is filled with "natural born" citizens that betrayed their country, and immigrants that are fiercely loyal to their adopted one. It's a state of mind. There can be no rule requiring a particular state of mind.
There can be a reasonable rule that someone must have been born here in order to be President. It's not an attempt to guarantee an outcome which is not possible to guarantee. It's a reasonable rule. It disallows immigrants from the office.
Your objection is that the simple requirement of being born here doesn't guarantee anything. No, it doesn't. But neither does any other rule you could possibly imagine.
Although we might think the founders should have been stricter, it really doesn't matter. The question at hand isn't what the best rule would be, the question is what the actual rule is. And the term "natural born citizen" meant to the founders, someone born in the country and therefore a citizen by birth.
As are you and everyone else. But it's not ill-informed. It's quite well informed.
But "influence" is not dictation. And that influence was in particular contexts, not in every minor subject Vattel ever wrote about.
Vattel himself noted that English rules about citizenship were different, and it is the English rules that matter here.
Sad you should even have to think that just because you want to be sure that the person in The White House is eligible to be there.
Let right be done
Founder George Mason would disagree heartily with your interpretation.
Mason initially condemned the Constitution, as overturning English common law. He put forth his List Of Objections to elaborate. He was a learned man of means, held in a level of esteem in his era equal to Washington or Madison, and was certainly qualified to know.
Mason was the father of The Bill Of Rights. To the extent that English common law continued in the new Nation, it was embodied there and not elsewhere, above and beyond separate constitutions and statutes in the several States.
| The Blackstone quote you provided is about children born outside of the country, but you are using it to try to make a point about being born inside. Do you see how that can't work? You are STILL missing this — and I'm sure at this point on purpose. Under the British common law as outlined by Blackstone — passing on subjugation from the FATHER to the child — Barack Obama SR's son was born out of Obama SR's native country of the United Kingdom in 1961. As such, Obama JR is still a "natural born subject" of the British crown. |
Beyond all logic, and despite documentation of such a thing being repulsive to our Founders and to our Constitution, we have a British President.
That’s what it means.
And we have FReepers arguing that we’re really de facto British subjects and have been all along.
Bizzarro world.
I have to agree with you. Too bad Ole Bobby Byrd is so old now. He knows and reveres the Constitution (as he understands it) and this country (as WE understand it). I’d take someone with his leanings any day over the 3 ahead of him.
|
§ 217. Children born in the armies of the state. For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory. If you are going to use Vattel's section 212 definition, you really should use the understanding of "in the country" in section 217. El Gato, ever since you made the post regarding McCain's eligibility, you've got me thinking of not only Vattel's influence on Vattel's "Natural Born Citizen", but also Blackstone's definition of "Natural Born Subject". Studying the etymology of many of the words stemming from the Latin root, modified by the Celts, then the ocean-faring French and British, I see the Common Law and Natural Law having many common ties that have impact on Vattel's "Natural Born Citizen" and Blackstone's "Natural Born Subject".
Plainly put: Blackstone’s common law at the time of the Framing would have applied to Obama SR – and Obama JR. As such, Obama JR was born “out of the country” of his father’s native country. Obama Jr was born a Subject to the British Crown, and is still today, unless he made an Oath of Abjuration to the British Crown. Which, by the way, is STILL the law of the land in the US and has been since 1795 – see 8 U.S.C. 1448.Your thoughts? |
By Jove, I think you’ve hit on it. B. Hussein Obama is a British subject. Well then, cheerio ol’ chap!
Okay .. . thank you. My belief is that the
Founders were attempting as much as possible
to eliminate all doubt about allegiance and
loyalty to this new country, and emphatic
about separating this government and future
leaders very clearly from the Crown and any
other foreign nation, in all the ways it was
humanly possible.
They suffered much to build this great nation.
Therefore, the head, heart and eyes of the new
leaders must be focused totally on the protection
and wellbeing of America, to the exclusion of any
other nation.
It’s only logical to one reviewing the history
and their incredible suffering, death and sacrifice
in establishing this momentous undertaking, that
at the minimum of what they could control and
devise, they set out to make certain that their
descendants of future leaders of this new nation
were to be those with, among other established
common sense standards, incontrovertably confirmed
citizenship data and familial origins and roots,
thereby assuring the most optimum chance of sole
allegiance to America with no hint of loyalty to
another nation.
Their stated intent was to do all they could, as
much as humanly possible, knowing the vagaries
and character flaws of man, to insure this.
Would you agree this was their intent, incorporated
as much as possible in the official documents of
the time?
That’s why this issue rankles so many .. the
son of a UK citizen sitting in our White House,
a man immersed in radicalism and communism from
his earliest years, as the forensics analyses
are done on how he ..with all the decades of
nominees with no citizenship or allegiance issues
to this country .. has been allowed to escape
official diligent scrutiny and vetting to rise to
this level.
Our Founding Fathers are turning over in the
graves in shock and horror.
And true to the Founders’ fears, Obama’s allegiance
and true loyalty to America and her values have
clearly been shown to be highly disturbing and suspect
to those who treasure this country, her history and
Founders, her continuing protection and security, and
her historic traditions and values. We are sitting on
the precipice of real dangers and tears to the very
fabric and traditions of our country, as well as her
safety.
And it’s this conundrum that will continue to be
debated and hopefully conclusively resolved, or the
honor, intentions and sacrifice of our Founders will
have been in vain, and the brave military who fight
and die daily, sworn to defend our Constitution and
our country against all enemies foreign and domestic,
as our elected officials are, will be at sea, rudderless
without firm and well-defined Constitutional guidelines.
And ironically, the biggest enemy of the Constitution
and our country may now be sitting in the White House
and is the CIC.
To ignore the above is to nonchalantly say:
okay he got through in spite of all the doubts, you
can’t prove any different, might as well admit you
got snookered .. and just get over it.
I doubt many Americans will tolerate that deal for
very long. They’re already at wit’s end and in the
streets now.
God bless, protect and save America.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Are you an attorney ?
Oh .. what’s your answer about my Mother’s
hypothetical situation?
bookmark...ping me when you get an answer...this I gotta see.
Authorized by the individual. A minor cannot authorize anyone, including a step parent to renounce their US citizenship. That's case law though, IIRC, although it might be buried in the statutes as well.
See State Department's 7 FAM 1292
e. Parents or guardians cannot renounce or relinquish the U.S. citizenship of a child who acquired U.S. citizenship at birth.
f. A minor who was naturalized through naturalization of parent prior to the Nationality Act of 1940 did not lose citizenship unless voluntary transfer of allegiance by the minor was shown. Any such finding of loss of nationality under the Act of 1907 would now be subject to administrative review in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Afroyim v. Rusk and Vance v. Terrazas. (See 7 FAM 1230.)
Also look at section I (2) at that link, which basicially says that even the minor themselves cannot do it under age 16, and 16-18 takes convincing a US official that the renunciation is totally voluntary and not at the behest of a parent or other adult.
When was the first such amendment. Congress critters get "forgetfull" sometimes they propose amendments and bills not to pass them, but to curry favor with some constitutency. An informed Congress Critters, and an honest one would just point out that such persons are already natural born citizens.
However that's as much as they could do, since to really settle the issue, absent a Constitutional amendment, would require a Supreme Court case, such as might have occurred had John McCain won the election. As it is, such persons are also citizens at birth under statute law, and the natural born component only comes into play concerning eligibility to the office of President. Otherwise such "citizens at birth" and true Natural Born citizens are treated identically under the statutes and the Constitution. Thus no case could arise concerning the issue, except in conjunction with Presidential eligibility. AFAIK, there have been no Presidents or Presidential candidates who were born of two citizen parents, but outside the country while one parent was serving in the Armed Forces of the US, other than John McCain. If so, no such case can have arisen.
I don't like relying on the status of BHO Jr under British law, common or otherwise. It is US law and the understanding of Constitutional terms at the time the Constitution was ratified, that count. That said, it's the lack of US citizenship of BHO Sr, that seems to me to be determinative, not his British Citizenship or any claim that British law at the time might have had on BHO Jr as a subject, natural born or otherwise. The War of 1812 showed that the US had taken a dim view of such claims.
However since BHO Jr was, if born in Hawaii, a dual national, that is a citizen of the US and a subject or citizen of the UK, and since, IMHO he's not a natural born Us Citizen, and further since British law would have him a Natural born subject/citizen of the UK (provided his parents were legally married at the time) then they are free to claim him and provide him with whatever benefits such status accrues. Let him run for Parliament and become their PM, if their voters so wish. Alternatively Kenya can claim him. He can take over from cousin Odinga for all I care.
Since, under the assumption of Hawaiian birth, he is a US citizen, he's also free to stay here, run for the Senate again, and/or just rot in place.
All citizens, from the most newly minted, naturalized citizen, to someone such as myself, who has no immigrant ancestors who arrived after the Revolution, have identical rights and immunities. The only distinction is made by the Constitution. Osborne v. Bank Of The United States and many other Supreme Court decisions make this plain. The only distinction between citizens made by the Constitution is regarding eligibility for national, elected office, restricted by age, length of residency and/or birth status, with increasingly restrictive requirements as the level of official capacity increases.
To your question, there have been many such efforts to put forth a Consitutional Amendment, since 1973, I believe. There have been five since the year 2000 alone.
I strongly suspect, that so much effort would not have been expended, and would not continue to be expended, if anyone at all could demonstrate that children born abroad of parents in service to the U.S. military were in fact natural-born citizens under original intent.
Such a contention flies in the face of everything that I've read on the matter, though, your cite of Vattel notwithstanding. A citizenship claim upon a President, lawfully based upon jus soli could pose all manner of difficulties, especially in times of war as I've pointed out, but not only that, it would also produce difficulties and entanglements in negotiating treaties.
So, I don't accept this interpretation, personally. I assume you see the reasoning, as to why I don't. I'm as much a proponent of Vattel as you are, regarding original intent for the term of art natural-born citizen. But, you lose me in seeking to extend this into applying to citizens born abroad. The Nationality Act Of 1795 forms the basis of my resistance to the notion, and all these Bills sponsored and co-sponsored, for Constitutional Amendment to that effect only reinforce that resistance.
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.