Posted on 06/22/2010 3:40:28 PM PDT by bushpilot1
In the Journals of the Continental Congress there is a translation of the French word naturels to natural born. Meaning the Founders understood Vattel's naturels to mean natural born.
The document and its translation by the Founders must have been overlooked over the years by the courts, congress and the news media.
In French.
ARTICLE III Les consuls et vice consuls respectifs ne pourront être pris que parmi les sujets naturels de la puissance qui les nommera.
The Founders Translation.
The respective Consuls and Vice Consuls shall only be taken from among the natural born subjects of the power nominating them.
The US State Dept site very plainly says the US does NOT have a Law legalizing dual citizenship. They merely turn a bling eye to the law on the books by allowing citizens to hold citizenship in other countries.
The Expatriation Act of 1868 has NEVER BEEN REPEALED! PERIOD!
whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendants, are subjects of foreign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed...That any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this government which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government.
Furthermore, the US State Dept has this to say:
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html
The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time. Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy.Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice. For example, a child born in a foreign country to U.S. citizen parents may be both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the country of birth.
A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth.U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship.
Intent can be shown by the person's statements or conduct.
Not only does the state dept lie by saying that there is no law mentioning dual citizenship, they then contradict themselves. Ya gotta love it when they trip all over themselves. This WILL come back to BITE THEM!
Curiously......I'm still waiting for your answer......................................................................................................
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 alternativeyou 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 indignationbetter 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
************************************************************
Tuckers Blackstone (1803) William & Mary College
We must here recollect, that the laws of England are divided into two distinct classes; the unwritten, and the written law: the former consisting of ancient, immemorial, general rules, maxims, and usages; the latter of written statutes, or acts of parliament, from time to time made in affirmance, or for the amendment, of the ancient unwritten law; or to remedy some defect, mischief, or inconvenience therein; or finally, to repeal and annul it, altogether. Consequently, the common, or unwritten law must have been in a state of continual change, from the first institution of parliaments, in the thirteenth century, to the present time; a period of more than five hundred years; two centuries whereof have elapsed since the first migrations were made to America, under the authority of charters granted by the crown of England; though not quite half a century passed over, between the establishment of the colony of Georgia, and the declaration of independence.
The ancient, immemorial, unwritten law of England, may be divided into the jus commune, common law, or folk-right, of which the ancient English were so tenacious,[10] and which they struggled so hard to maintain under the first princes of the Norman line: which subsequent princes so frequently promised to keep and restore, as the most popular act they could do, when pressed by foreign emergencies, or domestic discontents, and which depended solely upon custom; which carries this internal evidence of freedom along with it, that it was probably introduced by the voluntary consent of the people.[11] And, secondly, the jura coronae, or prerogatives of the crown, as contradistinguished from the rights and privileges of the people: the foundation of which could only be discovered in many respects, to rest upon immemorial usurpations, exactions, and oppressions, generated by feudal tyranny, and enforced by irresistible military authority. From these two copious, and opposite springs are derived all those rules and maxims, which constitute the ground and foundation of the common law, generally so called. And it is in the admixture of these opposite characters and principles, that we discover, according as the scale of liberty, or prerogative has preponderated, a greater or less proportion of the one, or the other, in every subordinate rule and maxim, which, together, compose the whole body of the English common law.
The jus commune, or folk-right, above-mentioned, had for its object, the rights of persons; comprehending the rules, maxims, and usages adopted to ensure the legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of a man's life, his limbs, his body, his health, and his reputation; with the power of locomotion, or changing his situation, or moving to whatever place his own inclination may direct; and generally, of doing every thing that his own disposition might prompt, or suggest to him to do, that is not attended with injury to any other, or to the society at large, without imprisonment, molestation or restraint; and lastly, the free use, enjoyment, and disposal, of all his lawful acquisitions, without any control or diminution. These being the rights and privileges which were expressly guaranteed by the royal charters, there can be no reason to doubt that it was the intention of the colonists to adopt them, in all cases where they might be found applicable to their new condition. To judge of this applicability, time, and experience were both requisite; since it might happen that a rule which might have been highly beneficial and practicable in the mother country, might from local circumstances, or other considerations, be deemed inexpedient, or impracticable, in an infant colony. Thus we find that in Massachusetts they very soon disregarded that ancient rule of the common law, which constitutes the eldest son sole heir to his father, and divided the estate, whether personal, or real, according to circumstances, among all the branches of the family:[12] A departure from the principles of the feudal law, of the propriety of which few Americans at this day entertain any doubt, yet certainly not authorized by the terms of their charter. Local circumstances, likewise, gave an early rise to a less justifiable departure from the principles of the common law in some of the colonies, in the establishment of slavery; a measure not to be reconciled either to the principles of the law of nature, nor even to the most arbitrary establishments in the English government at that period; absolute slavery, if it ever had existence in England, having been abolished long before. These instances shew that the colonists in judging of the applicability of the laws of the mother country to their own situations and circumstances, did not confine themselves to very strict, and narrow limits.
The jura corona, or lex prerogativa as denominated by Sir Matthew Hale, may be divided into two heads. First, those prerogatives which appertained strictly to the person of the prince; and secondly, such as regarded him in his political capacity, only; as the supreme head and ruler of the nation. Though all these which were not expressly given up by the crown in it's charters, might, in strictness, be considered as potentially existing in every part of the nation, yet the exercise, or violation, of them, or a great part of them, being perfectly impracticable in remote colonies, such parts may well be considered as in abeyance, or perfectly dormant, there. All those prerogatives which were annexed to the person of the prince, as an individual, in whose case, that was law, which was not law in any case of a subject,[13] must have been of this latter description; since the colonies could have nothing to do with them, in the internal administration of their affairs .... On the other hand those parts of the jura coronae which regard the prince, in his political capacity, only; that is, as the chief magistrate of the nation; the representative of his people; the administrator of the laws, and general conservator of the peace of his dominions, were applicable, or inapplicable, I apprehend, as circumstances might direct. Those laws, for example, which regard the king as supreme head of the national church, and punished non-conformity to its doctrines, and discipline, could not have been deemed applicable to the circumstances of a colony in which universal toleration in matters of religion was established by charter; and still less, perhaps, where the established, or prevailing religion of the colony differed from the church of England both in discipline, and in doctrine. Neither can we suppose the laws which regarded the king as supreme lord of the soil of his dominions, and those who held under him as military vassals, would be applicable to the condition of colonists who held their lands in free and common socage: yet the military tenures were not abolished in England, till near a century after the first charters granted to the colonies; and consequently that part of the common law which was founded upon the nature of these tenures remained in full force there, whilst it would have been perfectly absurd to suppose it could have been at all applicable to the colonies. Upon this ground we may infer that all the rules and maxims of the common law which sprung from that source, were equally inapplicable to the colonies; for cessante ratione, cessat et ipsa lex.
(snip for length)
Nor must we forget, what was also before slightly mentioned, that a part of the present United States was first settled by a Dutch colony; and another part, by Swedes. The tract claimed by those two nations extended from the thirty-eighth to the forty-first degree of latitude, and was called the New Netherlands, comprehending the present states of New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and the Eastern Shore of Maryland: it was conquered by the English, and confirmed to the crown of England by the treaty of Breda in 1667. The Dutch inhabitants remained in their settlements in New-York, and a part of Jersey; the Swedes, if I mistake not, were removed from Delaware to New-York, where they likewise remained. According to judge Blackstone, the laws of England, as such, could have no allowance, or authority there; this being a conquered and ceded country, and not a colony originally planted by Englishmen: and according to his principles, also, the laws of Holland, and of Sweden, were the municipal laws of those provinces, until the period of their conquest; and so continued until other laws were imposed upon them by the crown of England. When, and in what degree, a change was made in this manner; or whether any such change was ever formally made, can only be determined by recurrence to documents not within the reach of the author of these sheets.
From all these considerations it will appear, that in our inquiries how far the common law and statutes of England were adopted in the British colonies; or, in other words, what parts of those laws might be deemed applicable to their respective situations and circumstances, we must again abandon all hope of satisfaction from any general theory, and resort to their several charters, provincial establishments, legislative codes, and civil histories, for information. For although the colonial legislatures are understood to have been inhibited from passing any law derogatory from the sovereignty of the crown, or repugnant to the laws and statutes of England; which seems to have been the only common rule imposed upon them, yet the application of this rule in the several colonies will be found to have been as various as their respective soils, climates, and productions.
(snip for length)
3. Thirdly; what part of the laws of England were abrogated by the revolution, or retained by the several states, when they became sovereign, and independent republics.
And here we may premise, that by the rejection of the sovereignty of the crown of England, not only all the laws of that country by which the dependence of the colonies was secured, but the whole lex prerogativa (or Jura Coronae before mentioned) so far as respected the person of the sovereign and his prerogatives as an individual, was utterly abolished: and, that so far as respected the kingly office, and government, it was either modified, abridged, or annulled, according to the several constitutions and laws of the states, respectively: consequently, that every rule of the common law, and every statute of England, founded on the nature of regal government, in derogation of the natural and unalienable rights of mankind; or, inconsistent with the nature and principles of democratic governments, were absolutely abrogated, repealed, and annulled, by the establishment of such a form of government in the states, respectively. This is a natural and necessary consequence of the revolution, and the correspondent changes in the nature of the governments, unless we could suppose that the laws of England, like those of the Almighty Ruler of the universe, carry with them an intrinsic moral obligation upon all mankind. A supposition too gross and absurd to require refutation.
In like manner, all other parts of the common law and statutes of England, which, from their inapplicability, had not been brought into use and practice during the existence of the colonial governments, must, from the period of their dissolution, be regarded not only as obsolete, but as incapable of revival, except by constitutional, or legislative authority. For they no longer possessed even a potential existence, (as being the laws of the British nation, and as such, extending, in theoretical strictness, to the remotest part of the empire,) because the connexion, upon which this theoretical conclusion might have been founded, was entirely at an end: and having never obtained any authority from usage, and custom, they were destitute of every foundation upon which any supposed obligation could be built .... This is a regular consequence of that undisputed right which every free state possesses, of being governed by its own laws .... And as all laws are either written; or acquire their force and obligation by long usage and custom, which imply a tacit consent;[52] it follows, that where these evidences are wanting, there can be no obligation in any supposed law.
Another regular consequence of the revolution was this: when the American states declared themselves independent of the crown of Great-Britain, each state from that moment became sovereign, and independent, not only of Great-Britain, but of all other powers, whatsoever. Each had it's own separate constitution and laws, which could not, in any manner, be affected or controlled by the laws, or constitutions of any other. From that moment there was no common law amongst them but the general law of nations, to which all civilized nations conform.
(snip for length)
From the whole of the preceding examination, we may deduce the following conclusions:
First .... That the common law of England, and every statute of that kingdom, made for the security of the life, liberty, or property of the subject, before the settlement of the British colonies, respectively, so far as the same were applicable to the nature of their situation and circumstances, respectively, were brought over to America, by the first settlers of the colonies, respectively; and remained in full force therein, until repealed, altered, or amended by the legislative authority of the colonies, respectively; or by the constitutional acts of the same, when they became sovereign and independent states.
Secondly .... That neither the common law of England, nor the statutes of that kingdom, were, at any period antecedent to the revolution, the general and uniform law of the land in the British colonies, now constituting the United States.
Thirdly .... That as the adoption or rejection of the common law and statutes of England, or any part thereof, in one colony, could not have any operation or effect in another colony, possessing a constitutional legislature of it's own; so neither could the adoption or rejection thereof by the constitutional, or legislative act of one sovereign and independent state, have any operation or effect in another sovereign independent state; because every such state hath an exclusive right to be governed by it's own laws only.
Fourthly .... Therefore the authority and obligation of the common law and statutes of England, as such in the American states, must depend solely upon the constitutional or legislative authority of each state, respectively; as contained in their several bills of rights, constitutions, and legislative declarations .... which, being different in different states, and. wholly independent of each other, cannot establish any uniform law, or rule of obligation in all the states.
Fifthly .... That neither the articles of confederation and perpetual union, nor, the present constitution of the United States, ever did, or do, authorize the federal government, or any department thereof, to declare the common law or statutes of England, or of any other nation, to be the law of the land in the United States, generally, as one nation; nor to legislate upon, or exercise jurisdiction in, any case of municipal law, not delegated to the United States by the constitution
http://www.constitution.org/tb/t1e.htm
According to Tucker, Virginia's laws were the ones that followed ancient common law more strictly than all the others. After the Declaration Virginia adopted the most extensive & complete law regarding citizenship which was based on Vattel, Puffendorf, Locke, Grotius, etc whom Tucker refers to at every turn of the page unless he is referring to English Law, then he refers to Blackstone. Imagine that, but imagine this 1st:
Virginia May 1779 A Bill Declaring Who Shall Be Deemed Citizens of This Commonwealth
Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.
************************************************************
FACT, the English were NOT the 1st to settle in America & those that came only adopted the part of the common law they chose. They had no representation in Parliament as they were considered FREE colonies. So at the time of the revolution, there were many laws, but the common law they all held was that of inheritance into the society of the parents. The society that the parents held their political rights in. As Cato said: The United Netherlands(Scandinavian} laws held the laws of nature & nations as their core laws, not those of feudal king or monarchy. They were the ONLY laws that were acceptable to a free society where men are allowed the right to cast off their allegiance and choose another, but at no time can a man owe 2 allegiances at once as the highly esteemed Englishman, Sir William Blackstone teaches.
ROFLMAO, Boethius is trying to grapple with the law I threw at him/her. I luv it when the government gives us the ammunition in which to show how corrupt they have become. No wonder they want to control the internet.
“Naturels to the Founders did not mean simply the word natural..to them the term mean natural born.”
Then one must ask WHY they added ‘born’ to what OBVIOUSLY translates ‘natural’ or, applied to a people, ‘native’. And the only plausible answer is its relation to the English common law term “natural born subject”.
AND the phase translated NB is NOT naturels, but indigenous...
“The document has nothing to do with English Common Law.”
So why did they ADD born to ‘natural’? There is no reason to, linguistically - UNLESS they had in mind a common term in English...
The constitution also contemplates foreign citizens, like Obama. He was born a British citizen in Kenya.
Until a hospital steps forth, we have to take the Kenyan government, his family, and his wifes word that he was born in Kenya.
“The founding fathers knew full well that citizenship is through inheritance, not the soil.”
In any event, the 14th Amendment changed the United States from a Jus Sanguinis nation to a Jus Soli nation AND a Jus Sanguinis nation. Nothing can be more clear and precise than “all persons born...”
“Why do you defend bammie?”
I don’t. I try to adhere to the original intent of the Constitution - and the courts have a strong case for deciding the term NBC arises from English common law, not Vattel.
Truth is important. The idea that anyone born in the US is a natural born citizen was prevalent long before Obama came on the scene. Thus Ed Meese, hardly an Obamabot, wrote that definition before Obama was thought about:
Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are natural born citizens and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are natural born citizens eligible to serve as President...
Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005)
ROFLMAO, it amazes me how ignorant you make yourself look everytime you post a comment.
naturels = natural born; sujet = subjects; citoyens = citizens
What part of ascertaining a definition do you not comprehend?
Chief Justice John Jay, landmark Supreme Court Case, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793)
[T]he sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation, and the residuary sovereignty of each State in the people of each State
[A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects
]
The constitution also contemplates foreign citizens, like Obama. He was born a British citizen in Kenya.
Until a hospital steps forth, we have to take the Kenyan government, his family, and his wifes word that he was born in Kenya.
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by [the Supreme Court of the United States in their 1898 decision in the case of U.S. v.] Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are natural born Citizens for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.Indiana Court of Appeals, Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels, Nov. 12, 2009
I try to read the actual court decisions in Obama eligibility lawsuits.
It shows. You miss a lot of pertinent facts by not examining surrounding circumstances. Unfortunately, politics DO play a role in some decisions.
What you leave out is that part of the discussion that pertained to citizen, not NBC & Madison also further went on to say that
Mr. Smith founds his claims upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony...if he were not a minor, he became bound, by his own act, ... if he was a minor, his consent was involved in the decision of that society to which he belonged by the ties of nature.
Smith was making his claim that he was a citizen by mere fact of jus soli birthright, however Madison goes on to dispel that claim. Madison further explains farther into his speech on the floor that Smith being a minor at the time of the Declaration of Independence; Smith's citizenship came through his father(ties of nature). The act of Smith's father taking an oath to become a citizen of the new society automatically gave consent for his children by becoming himself a member of the new society.
IOW, according to Madison, birth on soil did NOT automatically make one a citizen, the parents must have been citizens for the child to become one. BWHAHAHAHA....
The constitution is dead.
I went to a Citizenship swearing in ceremony today. The guest speaker stated the constitution is a living document. I then watched a man named Mohammad get sworn in.
There is no law against insanity or for common sense.
The constitution is dead.
ROFL, that lame argument again where you parse & edit only the part of Madison’s words to hide the part wherein he tells why Smith was a citizen by birth on the soil.
What you leave out is that part of the discussion that pertained to citizen, not NBC & Madison also further went on to say that
Mr. Smith founds his claims upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony...if he were not a minor, he became bound, by his own act, ... if he was a minor, his consent was involved in the decision of that society to which he belonged by the ties of nature.
Smith was making his claim that he was a citizen by mere fact of jus soli birthright, however Madison goes on to dispel that claim. Madison further explains farther into his speech on the floor that Smith being a minor at the time of the Declaration of Independence; Smith’s citizenship came through his father(ties of nature). The act of Smith’s father taking an oath to become a citizen of the new society automatically gave consent for his children by becoming himself a member of the new society.
IOW, according to Madison, birth on soil did NOT automatically make one a citizen, the parents must have been citizens for the child to become one. BWHAHAHAHA....
Readers can then make up their own minds about its proper context.
The judges or justices that have stated an opinion on Barack Obama’s eligibility as a natural born citizen or not have referenced either the 14th Amendment or the Supreme Court decisions deriving from the 14th Amendment such as US v Wong Kim Ark from 1898.
There’s just no way around those opening 14th Amendment words:
“ALL PERSONS BORN...”
you had better come here fully armed or you are likely to get crushed!
They don't even recognize when that happens. Overandoverandover........
As far as you linking to the Madison speech, parse & edit, why not give ALL of it, especially the reason Madison came to his conclusion? I know, because it contradicts you interpretation of Madison's words and shows your desperation to change the actual intent of the term ‘natural born’ as Congress has been trying to do for nearly 50 years now.
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.