Vattel and the Founders meaning of the term Naturels (Natural Born)

Journals of the Continental Congress 1781 ^ | 1781 | The Founders

[jamese777]

Well, you’ve got a lovely little conspiracy theory going there that just about everyone in the political system would need to be in on. Anything’s possible, I guess.

On the other hand, maybe just maybe, Barack Hussein Obama II was born at 7:24 P.M. on Friday, August 4, 1961 at Kapi’olani Medical Center in Honolulu and his father not being a US citizen has nothing to do with whether a child born to an American mother on US soil qualifies as a natural born citizen and Obama then went on to receive 69.4 million popular votes and 365 Electoral votes which were certified by the President of the Senate at a joint session of Congress and Obama was sworn in by the Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts and he is the duly elected 44th President of the United States.

---

I followed with great interest discussions among attorneys and constitutional scholars of legal standing in court cases concerning Obama’s eligibility.
Here’s what I gleaned from those discussions on legal blogs:
The consensus was that McCain – and possibly Palin – COULD have had standing if a court case had been brought BEFORE the Electoral College vote was certified. Since they didn’t, and as part of opposition party research, any campaign’s legal department would have looked very closely at that issue – it wouldn’t matter if they tried to bring a suit at this late date. Once the Electoral College vote was certified by Congress (without objections), it moved the entire question out of the court system’s jurisdiction. It’s now, according to the Constitution, strictly a matter for Congress. So trying to bring arguments about Obama’s eligibility to the courts is most likely a losing proposition, as witnessed by the unbroken string of losses (69 at last count) those challenging Obama’s eligibility via civil suits have racked up.

US District Court Judge David O. Carter assumed for the sake of argument that Alan Keyes had standing (but expressed doubts, as Keyes’ suit was filed after Obama had been sworn in). Plus Keyes was only on the ballot in three states and did not have a legitimate chance to be elected.

In a pre-election challenge, perhaps any presidental candidate would have standing.

Now that Obama is president, the only one who could have a possible interest and possibly be granted standing is Joe Biden.

The post-election, pre-inauguration time period is more tricky. (And can be further subdivided in pre-Electoral College, post-Electoral College/pre-certification, and post-certification). But for that period, assuming such a suit could even be bought (i.e., political question aside), standing to sue would most likely be limited to actual presidental candidates.

If you want Obama out of the presidency before the 2012 elections, have him charged with a crime, let enough Obama opponents be elected to Congress to have a bill of impeachment pass and have enough Obama opponents in the Senate to garner 67 votes in a trial to convict him of high crimes and misdemeanors.

---

And finally, the point of my mentioning Dreams From My Father was not to discuss how many books were sold but the fact that Obama himself was the person who alerted anyone who cared to listen to the fact that his father was not an American citizen and he did that 12 years before he ran for president and reiterated it over and over again in speeches once he started running for the presidency.
His political opposition was ineffective in using that information which was on the public record.

[Mr Rogers]

I suggest you read the dissent in WKA, that recognized they were giving the right to be President to the child of tourists passing thru the USA.

They used his qualifying as a natural born subject to justify calling him a citizen without regard for the allegiance of his parents. The dissent recognized the natural implications of their thought.

[Mr Rogers]

“It goes to the law in place in 1940 & NOT YET REPEALED that the child follows the condition of the father unless born out of wedlock. If the married parents were of different nationalities, then the child MUST at the coming of age, decide & take a formal oath if the child wishes to take the nationality of the mother, otherwise the derivative(consenting) citizenship of the father at birth is said to be his ONLY citizenship of allegiance.”

Ummm...Congress cannot make a law determining the citizenship of someone born in the USA. That is what WKA was about. The idea that Obama is a UK citizen is...LOONY! CRAZY! INSANE!

No court in the country agrees with your novel interpretation of citizenship, which is why folks who agree with you keep getting their butts handed to them in court!

[jamese777]

Expressly prohibit? It surely is EXPRESSLY PROHIBITTED BY LAW. It has been since 1776, and further codified by treaty & Acts of the congresses of the confederation & federal government in 1783, 1789, 1790, 1795, 1802, 1824, 1853, 1866, 1868, etc, etc.

---

And yet we’ve always had folks with dual citizenship, tens of thousands of them.

I’m sure you are aware of the fact that Mexico changed its laws a few years back to allow US citizens who were born in Mexico to vote in Mexican elections. There are even Mexican polling places in US cities.
A US citizen ran for the Israeli Parliament in the last general elections. He didn’t win.
Nobody knows how many Americans of Irish descent are Irish and American dual citizens since Ireland has among the most liberal citizenship laws in the world.
I’m certain that the following is going to drive you crazy but that is not my intent, I only want to provide an example:
The special exemption to U.S. Nationality Law available to dual citizenship Israeli-Americans

The 1940 Nationality Act

Section 401 (e) of the 1940 Nationality Act provides that a U.S. citizen, whether by birth or naturalization, “shall lose his [U.S.] nationality by...voting in a political election in a foreign state.”

This law was tested many times. In 1958, for instance, an American citizen named Perez voted in a Mexican election. The case went to the Supreme Court, where the majority opinion held that Perez must lose his American nationality. The court said Congress could provide for expatriation as a reasonable way of preventing embarrassment to the United States in its foreign relations.

But then something different happened.

In 1967 an American named Beys Afroyim received an exemption that set a precedent exclusively for American Jews. Afroyim, born in Poland in 1895, emigrated to America in 1912, and became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1926. In 1950, aged 55, he emigrated to Israel and became an Israeli citizen. In 1951 Afroyim voted in an Israeli Knesset election and in five political elections that followed. So, by all standards he lost his American citizenship — right? Wrong.

After living in Israel for a decade, Afroyim wished to return to New York. In 1960, he asked the U.S. Consulate in Haifa for an American passport. The Department of State refused the application, invoking section 401 (e) of the Nationality Act — the same ruling that had stripped the American citizen named Perez of his U.S. citizenship.

Attorneys acting for Afroyim took his case to a Washington, DC District Court, which upheld the law. Then his attorneys appealed to the US Court of Appeals. This court also upheld the law. The attorneys for Afroyim then moved the case on to the Supreme Court (Afroyim v Rusk). The high court voted five to four in favor of Afroyim. The court held that the U.S. government had no right to “rob” Afroyim of his American citizenship.

The court, reversing its previous judgment as regards the Mexican American, ruled that Afroyim had not shown “intent” to lose citizenship by voting in Israeli elections.
Since then, dual citizenship has been “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t renounce.”

These days, the only way to lose US citizenship – barring treason or joining a hostile foreign army - is if a person explicitly renounces it with intent to give it up. The key word is intent- if a person acquires a foreign nationality but would never dream of relinquishing their US citizenship, this is clearly not an intent to renounce. And the only way to legally relinquish US citizenship is to leave the country, sign an “oath of renunciation” in front of a US consular officer or diplomat, and then hand over one’s passport for confiscation.

[patlin]

And finally, the point of my mentioning Dreams From My Father was not to discuss how many books were sold but the fact that Obama himself was the person who alerted anyone who cared to listen to the fact that his father was not an American citizen

WRONG! There are many instances where people, especially the lamestream media covered up the fact by calling Obama’s father an immigrant INCLUDING the day of the INNAUGURATION! And they still try to cover to this very day! My father in law who has always been a strict conservative, both practicing & political got sucked in by the “WON”. He was lied to and he is now embarrassed but mostly disgusted that he was lied to by a charismatic politician he thought was telling the truth. We went to our elected officials both at the state & federal level & we were brushed off thanks to McCain's little overseas birth(topic for another day). If you want to be taken seriously, then at least get your facts straight. He won taking 53% of the popular vote. Hardly a landslide victory. Reagan took 51% in his 1st term & 54% in his second term but he too over 90% of the electoral vote in both elections taking over 97% in 1984. So I'd hardly call Obama a record setter, his numbers are merely mediocre as were Clinton's & Bush W's where partisan politics were more important than the best interest of the nation as a whole. Obama is the epitome of partisan politics, he knows know other than his own person ideology in which he clamored at us again today by politicitzeng the war in Afghanistan.

OBAMA RELEASE YOUR RECORDS!

[patlin]

These days, the only way to lose US citizenship...

Permit me to properly finish that for you.

These days, the only way to lose US citizenship is to continue to elect liberals to office who appoint even more liberals who turn a blind eye to that law so they don't actually have to uphold their oaths of office by enforcing the law.

Since when does ignoring the law make it legal to break it? Where is that definition or practice in the US Code? We are either a nation of laws or we have slipped back into a nation ruled by men with no regard to the written law. A nation & society can not continue to exist in the latter form and we are very close to that breaking point. HISTORY is replete with cases showing what NOT to do if your country expects to survive. So now that I know which side you are on, which country would you like a one way ticket to because we are NOT giving up ours.

[omegadawn]

“In the view of the minority, excessive reliance on birthplace as the principal determiner of citizenship would lead to an untenable state of affairs in which “...the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country”

The minority believed that allowing Kim to have citizenship could someday lead to the U.S. to allowing citizens of people with no allegiance to gain citizenship. Guess they were right. That was not the intent of the majority opinion, but as the minority opinion stated it could lead to that some day. liberals have misread the Ark case to accomplished this.

[etraveler13]

And Just maybe NOT...If he is legit, where is the birth certificate? Why has he sealed every document he has, why has he not satisfied the electorate, regardless of if he had to or not, to move past this fiasco. To say, because he doesn’t have to, is irrelevant. He is the one who touted a Transparent Presidency, so far its the most opaque in history.

---

As for your legal discussions and constitutional scolars discussing Legal standing. I think you forgot Kerschner vs. Obama
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/06/kerchner-et-al-v-obamacongress-et-al.html

---

I never questioned his books. I read somewhere that Obama said while running for Illinois State Senate that he did not have to be NBC to run for Senate. I looked for it but could not find it..Anybody know where it is?? Thanks.
Nuf sed.

[patlin]

Please do tell, give the specifics of ANY case that actually entered a court room. Give me an example of 1 case that had a fair hearing on the merits of the case in an open court room? Dismissal for lack of standing does not equal no merit to the foundation of the case. Congress has the authority to naturalize aliens/immigrants and say which aliens/immigrants may be citizens, which includes the immigrants children. Any child who acquires their citizenship because of an act of Congress acquires it through a form of naturalization. PERIOD! Natural born(born to 2 citizen parents) need no act of congress or law because at birth they owe allegiance to one & only one nation. The nation of their birth.

Again, might I suggest you open a book prior to 1800 where it defines the definition of subject, born on soil regardless of parentage & citizen, born to citizen parents.

I challenge you to find me 1 book that defines the 2 as the same. And I do not want opinions in law, I want actual law dictionaries or scholastic dictionaries because even Webster's 1825 dictionary defines them as 2 different things. One being under the rule of a master & the other a free & sovereign member of society. Free members consent to participation, subjects have no say or right to participation unless it is granted to them by the rulers.

I won't hold my breath for you to actually take the challenge as you have already shown your ignorance of history & the law. But one can still hope for the oppressed & ignorant to finally see the light & become informed & free.

[Mr Rogers]

““And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land....“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.” - James Kent COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)

“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence,…A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.” - St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES (1803)

“Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign…Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.” - Justice Story, concurring opinion,Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor (1830)

“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.” - William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States (1829)

“Every person born within the United States, its Territories, or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen of the United States in the sense of the Constitution…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 are such as are born out of it.” …… “It makes a man a subject in England, and a citizen here, and is, as Blackstone declares, ‘founded in reason and the nature of government’ … The English Law made no distinction … in declaring that all persons born within its jurisdiction are natural-born subjects. This law bound the colonies before the revolution, and was not changed afterward.” - Rep. Wilson, 1866 Civil Rights Act debates

“There is no uniform rule among nations by which the nationality of effect of birth a person may be determined from the place of his birth. England and America claim all who are born within their dominions as natural-born subjects or citizens, whatever may have been the parents’ nationality.” - Henry Wheaton, Elements of International Law, 1889 edition.

As for a case that entered a court room, I’m sure you’ve heard of Indiana, whose courts have ruled on Obama and the meaning of natural born citizen:

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

[jamese777]

And Just maybe NOT...If he is legit, where is the birth certificate? Why has he sealed every document he has, why has he not satisfied the electorate, regardless of if he had to or not, to move past this fiasco. To say, because he doesn’t have to, is irrelevant. He is the one who touted a Transparent Presidency, so far its the most opaque in history.

As for your legal discussions and constitutional scolars discussing Legal standing. I think you forgot Kerschner vs. Obama
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/06/kerchner-et-al-v-obamacongress-et-al.html
I never questioned his books. I read somewhere that Obama said while running for Illinois State Senate that he did not have to be NBC to run for Senate. I looked for it but could not find it..Anybody know where it is?? Thanks.
Nuf sed.

---

Kerchner v Obama was dismissed by the Federal District Court for New Jersey.
From the opinion in Kerchner v Obama of Judge Jerome B. Simandle:
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’
motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The accompanying Order shall be entered.”

What is still pending before the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals is whether the trial court erred in dismissing the lawsuit. Since the 3rd Circuit just last week denied oral arguments in Kerchner v Obama, it is highly unlikely that they will rule in the plaintiff’s favor next week, but we’ll all have to wait and see. If they do rule in the plaintiff’s favor, then the case goes back to the Federal District Court for New Jersey.

“Dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction” is the trial court judge’s way of saying, “its not my job to determine whether a President is eligible or not, after the fact. That’s the job of Congress.”

If Obama ISN’T legit, why is the state of Hawaii vouching for him, particularly with members of the opposition party to Obama in control of the Hawaii state government?
You questioned the number of copies of Dreams From My Father compared to the number of people who voted. Since 69.4 million people voted for Obama and 59.9 million folks voted for John McCain, you’re right that is indeed more than read the book.

[bushpilot1]

Our resident Obot Mr. Rogers states the 1797 Edition of Vattel natural born citizen cannot be mentioned because it is after the ratification. Yet he posts numerous quotes after the ratification regarding natural born citizen.

Naturels means natural born by the Founders in 1781..before the ratification.

[Mr Rogers]

I have written that Vattel did not inspire the wording of the Constitution, since NBC wasn’t included in a Vattel translation until AFTER ratification. Therefor, the case for using Vattel to determine original intent is weak, at best.

However, if I am asked to provide commentary on what was written IN the Constitution, then by definition the quotes must come AFTER the document they are commenting on. At no time have I claimed those quotes in any way inspired the wording of the Constitution, since they clearly did not.

Apples and oranges...

[edge919]

You’ve made a compelling case. Just as compelling and obvious is that you didn’t have to translate Vattel’s words to say natural born citizen, because what he describes as native born is still dependent on the parents being citizens. This concept is common among the charters of the original colonies. Some even make a distinction about being born as citizens OR denizens, depending on the status of the parents.

[patlin]

Oh please, you can't do better than regurgitate DrConspiracies theories that rely on English law which Tucker in his additions to Blackstone's Commentaries of 1803 stated that ALL aspects of the English law was abolished except that of the international common law of nature & nations which still existed. The colonies were 1st settled by the Dutch, then by the Swedes which became known as the New United Netherlands. The English did not arrive until quite some time later and with them, they only brought the laws that were suitable to themselves and they did not consider themselves subjects because they were NOT part of the Monarchy, but were sovereign colonies, each with their own laws and each with very different laws. Of the 13 original colonies only 5 were of English origin. Now, reconcile that!

[Mr Rogers]

Oh, good point. We DO follow the law of the Netherlands over the common law of England in determining meanings and traditions, don’t we?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No wonder your friends lose EVERY SINGLE TIME!

[patlin]

MsRogerette has been calling me NUTS all day, but then he does nothing but regurgitate Dr Conspracy lies & theories.

We know better & you have shown proof in the Congressional record of 1781 that naturels was translated well before the the 1st federal constitution was even drafted and well before the Treaty of Peace was signed.

I have been studying Aristotle most of the day and I now have a better handle on what is happening and we are very much in the midst of a tyranny. The way to destroy the government from within is to eliminate the middle class so there remains only 2 extremes, the haves & have nots. Once the middle class if removed, the demagogues(Obama, Pelosi, Reid & crew) can take over as oligarchs (dictator & crew). The middle class is the key to the preservation of any constitutional society because the middle class are the ones who retain the reason needed to maintain a civilized representative society. Ever wondered why the government never denies them selves pay raises & govt workers earn 3 times more than the average worker? Aristotle explains it all and the founders & framers were all educated in this great work.

Sad to say, that while it is all quite fascinating, it is all too real to what is happening today and we are in a time crunch. The more babies of aliens they can continue to make citizens,(yes, it is laid out just how the demagogues use this to overpower the people from within) thereby fast-tracking the parents to citizenship or better yet, some fast track amnesty law, is key and thus the leaks that have came out yesterday that Obama may try and pass amnesty thru fiat(executive order), by-passing congress and totally out of the bounds of his power.

Don't give up & don't give in. There are still more of us than them! Keep the faith! Your work is invaluable to the cause.

[patlin]

The founding fathers knew full well that citizenship is through inheritance, not the soil.
The Federalist and other constitutional papers, Volume 2 By Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Erastus Howard Scott, James Madison

Your fate, and that of your posterity, depends on your present conduct; do not give the latter reason to curse yon, nor yourselves cause of reprehension; as individuals you are ambitious of leaving behind you a good name, and it is the reflection that you have done right in this life, that blunts the sharpness of death; the same principles would be a consolation to you, as patriots, in the hour of dissolution, that you would leave to our children a fair political inheritance, untouched by the vultures of power, which you had acquired by an unshaken perseverance in the cause of liberty; but how miserable the alternative—you would deprecate the ruin you had brought upon yourselves, be the curse of posterity, and the scorn and scoff of nations.

Deliberate, therefore, on this new national government with coolness; analyze it with criticism; and reflect on it with candor; if you find that the influence of a powerful few, or the exercise of a standing army, will always be directed and exerted for your welfare alone, and not to the aggrandizement of themselves, and that it will secure to you and your posterity happiness at home, and national dignity and respect from abroad, adopt it; if it will not, reject it with indignation—better to be where you are for the present, than insecure forever afterwards. Turn your eyes to the United Netherlands, at this moment, and view their situation; compare it with what yours may be, under a government substantially similar to theirs.
CATO Sept. 26, 1787

http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA616&dq=federalist+Papers&ei=kiIgTMjME4KClAfB_Nxi&ct=result&id=HWESAAAAYAAJ#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Mr Rogers]

“The founding fathers knew full well that citizenship is through inheritance, not the soil.”

Umm...no. If you are born in the US, you are a citizen. There were exceptions in the 1800s (based on the Injuns not being conquered, and blacks being slaves), but not since. And we do NOT follow the Netherlands!

Do you have any idea how STUPID it sounds when you say that Obama isn’t American, even if born here?

[patlin]

And while your eating your “CROW”, may you feast on the dessert of the Scandinavian agents of the secret foreign service of the revolution, especially Dumas, who put in the hands of the constitutional congress, the 1st volumes of Vattel they needed.

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/gwhtml/gwhome.html

But why stop there, we then have this:

The first principle of government is founded on the natural rights of individuals, and in perfect equality. Locke, Vattel, Lord Somers, and Dr. Priestly, all confirm this principle. This principle of equality, when applied to individuals, is lost in some degree, when he becomes a member of a society, to which it is transferred; and this society, by the name of state or kingdom, is, with respect to others, again on a perfect footing of equality--a right to govern themselves as they please. Nor can any other state, of right, deprive them of this equality. If such a state confederates, it is intended for the good of the whole; and if it again confederate, those rights must be well guarded. Nor can any state demand a surrender of any of those rights; if it can, equality is already destroyed. We must treat as free states with each other, upon the same terms of equality that men, originally formed themselves into societies. Vattel, Rutherford and Locke, are united in support of the position, that states, as to each other, are in a state of nature.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llfr&fileName=001/llfr001.db&recNum=469&itemLink=D?hlaw:8:./temp/~ammem_jHG4::%230010470&linkText=1