Posted on 10/13/2010 3:04:13 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
Continuing to believe that they havent gotten an answer because they havent gotten an answer they like is why some people never get anywhere.
>For instance, what if a Private told his Drill Sargeant he did not feel like peeling potatoes, and plus he didnt know for sure the Sargeant was even a citizen, or a real Sargeant to boot.
>
>When I went through Basic, there were (said to be) E4s wearing E5 Buck Sargeant stripes, serving as Drill Sargeants.
>
>Woe be to the guy who took a position that he didnt have to follow an order, for the other guy wasnt a true Sargeant.
It’s different for a number of reasons:
1) “Drill Sergeant” is not a rank, it is a title; like ‘Sergeant of the Guard.’
— There is no requirement that the person leading drill/training OR occupying the slot ‘Sergeant of the Guard’ be a Sergeant (or Citizen).
2) Declaring that you won’t comply with legal orders is not the same as declaring that you will not comply with unlawful orders.
— The Constitution *requires* that the President Elect meet certain qualifications AND THEN lays the position of Commander-in-Chief on the President.
“Authority is defined as the right to direct soldiers to do certain things. Authority is the legitimate power of leaders to direct soldiers or to take action within the scope of their position. Military authority begins with the Constitution, which divides it between Congress and the President. The President, as commander in chief, commands the armed forces, including the Army. The authority from the Commander-in-Chief extends through the chain of command, with the assistance of the NCO support channel, to the squad, section or team leader who then directs and supervises the actions of individual soldiers.” — http://www.armystudyguide.com/content/army_board_study_guide_topics/nco_duties/duties-responsibilities-authority-of-nco.shtml
>Are you originally from the former Soviet Union? It sure sounds like you prefer the Soviet judicial system: guilty whether there is actual evidence of guilt or not.
Um, wow; please point out where on this thread I have said that Obama’s guilt [or anyone else’s] is independent of any evidence.
In fact, please show ANYWHERE on this thread where I have said that Obama *shouldn’t* be given a trial.
>In America it is the job of the plaintiff to present evidence of injury or harm and in a criminal proceeding, it is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
>This is called an adversarial system.
>The defense then counters with briefs showing why a trial is unnecessary and a waste of the courts time.
>Thus far, unnecessary and a waste of the courts time has prevailed 72 to 0.
And yet you’re here complaining that Obama’s eligibility cannot be investigated as part of the defense for Col Larkin despite Art 46:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2606951/posts?page=142#142
Continuing to believe that they havent gotten an answer because they havent gotten an answer they like is why some people never get anywhere.
So then if you were to bring up two conflicting orders from your boss, say to purchase 20 new printers [with some minimum set of requirements] AND to keep the price below a certain limit, because there doesn't exist any printer with those requirements with a low enough cost that you can buy 20 of them and getting a "Fuck Off!" when requesting clarification on which requirement should be relaxed is reasonable? That such a response is "an answer"?
Or would you insist that your problem be heard?
Are any orders lawful in the military, since Obama’s coronation?
If not then all orders are unlawful since Obama’s inauguration.
Since most here support Lakin, doesn’t it follow that all good soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines and coast guardsmen should likewise simply stop following all of their orders, too—since all orders are unlawful?
Why limit it to the military? Are my federal taxes lawful? Federal immigration laws lawful?
IOW do federal laws operate the same way as military orders?
Don’t the departments and agencies which write federal regulations, and enforce them derive their “authority” from the President?
Can I now grow and sell marijuana, since the federal statute against same is unlawful because Obama is not qualified to be President? (setting aside the state laws, for the purpose of discussion)
“...if you were to bring up two conflicting orders from your boss..”
Pretty much every Tuesday.
That kind of response would indeed be an answer. I can either work with it or find another job.
“Methinks you have a problem with consistency.”
Methinks you have a problem with reading.
WKA addresses the meaning of ‘natural born citizen’ for half of the decision. The court says the meaning is found in the very similar common law term, known to all the Founders, “natural born subject”. They then spend pages discussing NBS, pointing out that as long as the parents were present ‘in amity’, their child WAS a NBS even if they BOTH were aliens. And since that was true of a NBS, they reasoned that it was also the Founder’s intent when they wrote “natural born citizen”.
And if WKA was a natural born citizen, per the Constitution, then he had to be a citizen and no treaty could override it.
The 14th echoes the NBC clause, since it also requires the child to not be born of an Ambassador, or an invading army.
“And yet someone can lose their right to Keep and Bear arms because of a restraining order, issued by some judge, with no trial?”
Red herring. FWIW, I strongly believe the answer is no, but unlike many birthers, I’m willing to admit that the courts don’t agree with my interpretation. And while it pisses me off, I don’t go around filing lawsuits in an attempt to change it. If I can, I’ll vote for people who may someday bring it back to where it ought to be.
“Master Yoda: Native born citizen, he may be...natural born citizen, he is not...”
Master Yoda has no legal authority in the US. The courts do, and they use the terms interchangeably in multiple cases. Native born = natural born = born a citizen. To the courts. So until Yoda sits on the Supreme Court, he’s simply...wrong.
Yes, they should do so. It would effectively leave the country w/o an Armed Force until the issue was properly resolved.
If the government didn't want such a strike then they shouldn't have allowed things to progress to such a point.
>Why limit it to the military? Are my federal taxes lawful*? Federal immigration laws lawful?
>
>IOW do federal laws operate the same way as military orders?
No. Federal Law does not operate in the same manner; elsewise what would be the purpose of a Legislature whose whole existence is the making and altering of laws?
*There are a lot of reasons that one could argue that many of the Federal taxes are unlawful. In the instance of the income tax... consider this: The Supreme Court has declared that the Constitutional prohibition against Ex Post Facto laws applied *ONLY* to criminal laws; the income tax laws may be changed in a retroactive (Ex Post Facto) manner because "they are regulatory and not criminal" laws; violations of that so-called non-criminal law are prosecuted in CRIMINAL court.
IWO, the current system of tax laws violates the Constitution and is therefore not legal.
>Dont the departments and agencies which write federal regulations, and enforce them derive their authority from the President?
No, they usually derive their power from [laws passed by] the Congress; in some cases they derive directly from the Constitution: the INS, for example, is responsible for executing the "uniform Rule of Naturalization" the Constitution mentions that the Congress is to make/maintain. The ATF has its roots in the 18th Amendment which said "The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
Though there are indeed a great many federal regulations/agencies which have no Constitutional justification whatsoever: the Department of Energy, the Department of Labor, the ATF (we repealed *ALL* of the 18th Amendment!!), the Department of Agriculture, the FDA....
>Can I now grow and sell marijuana, since the federal statute against same is unlawful because Obama is not qualified to be President? (setting aside the state laws, for the purpose of discussion)
There is no Amendment allowing the [Fed] Government to regulate Marijuana; when alcohol was a prohibited substance WE NEEDED A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT! So, insofar as the Constitution is concerned, the Federal Government has no business whatsoever in declaring that Marijuana is 'prohibited.'
>>...if you were to bring up two conflicting orders from your boss..
>
>Pretty much every Tuesday.
>
>That kind of response would indeed be an answer. I can either work with it or find another job.
The military *can’t.* (At w/o charges of: Dereliction, Insubordination, Missing Movement, etc.)
That is one of the reasons I let my enlistment expire; I won’t take such BS and disrespect.
I figure there are probably more than 72 corrupt judges.
It’s a shame Lakin didn’t get that through his head before he flushed his career.
“So until Yoda sits on the Supreme Court...”
Denied still, their petitions would be.
>>Methinks you have a problem with consistency.
>
>Methinks you have a problem with reading.
> [...]
>WKA addresses the meaning of natural born citizen [...], pointing out that as long as the parents were present in amity, their child WAS a NBS even if they BOTH were aliens.
I’m going to come at this from
First: “In Amenity” is not the same thing as “In Animosity” which the vast majority of “guest workers are.” {This is only tangential to the discussion.}
Second: You are saying that the child was born in the US; this is itself debatable in the case of Obama; his own grandmother claims to have been present, in Kenya, for his birth whilst the stories of his birth-in-Hawaii claimed different hospitals. Yes it *COULD* have been that his sister, IIRC who it was giving the interview, simply forgot and threw out the name of the first Hawaii hospital that came to mind. Your siding w/ the courts to throw out all eligibility cases based on these and what other investigations of the facts have turned up is irksome. (The equivalent of hearing the stories of Hercules containing widely differing accounts and wondering which, if any, were the truth... and then being forbidden from presenting any evidence contrary to whatever the current storyteller is uttering.)
>And since that was true of a NBS, they reasoned that it was also the Founders intent when they wrote natural born citizen.
>And if WKA was a natural born citizen, per the Constitution, then he had to be a citizen and no treaty could override it.
>The 14th echoes the NBC clause, since it also requires the child to not be born of an Ambassador, or an invading army.
*sigh* - You are agreeing with me that birth-location alone does NOT NECESSARILY make one a NBC.
>>And yet someone can lose their right to Keep and Bear arms because of a restraining order, issued by some judge, with no trial?
>
>Red herring. FWIW, I strongly believe the answer is no, but unlike many birthers, Im willing to admit that the courts dont agree with my interpretation.
Really? You were so willing to dismiss out-of-hand the validity of the eligibility-suits because of what the courts were/are doing; does this mean that you are willing to dismiss out-of-hand your own disagreement with the courts (regarding firearms)?
>And while it pisses me off, I dont go around filing lawsuits in an attempt to change it.
IOW, “Yep.” [To the above question.]
I haven’t gotten around to doing it yet, as I want to finish School first, but there are several state & city laws which violate my State Constitution that I plan on challenging.
>If I can, Ill vote for people who may someday bring it back to where it ought to be.
IOW, “it’s not my fault!”
That is exactly why the Constitution needs to be followed and the SC needs to take seriously the requirements thereof because the country is breaking down because of all the fraud in the legal system. For instance, the 16th did not have enough votes to pass so the Solicitor General just counted a few extra states that came in after the expiration date so he could get it passed. The 17th required a unanimous vote according to the Constitution, no problem the Solicitor General just marked it passed. So you are right, you should not be paying taxes because of the fraud, but neither has there been a law passed legally since the 17th was declared passed. You cannot declare things passed that are not unless you have thugs. And, we have lots of them.
Notice that Obama moved up his timetable to visit Indonesia right after the November elections. A good time for him to look for another place to live.
It's only a matter of time when 0bama will be declared ineligible.
[At Post # 336] is a page that is part of a granted brief (21st of September) in the 3rd District Court of Virginia. The Amicus Brief was file by Virginia's Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.
As I said, it is only a matter of time before 0bama is gone.
See # 336, w/ document.
[Thanks, Red Steel. Good news, indeed.]
I said, as the court did, “in amity”. Amity = “1. friendship; peaceful harmony. 2. mutual understanding and a peaceful relationship, esp. between nations; peace; accord.”
IOW, those here with the consent of the government and IAW its will. Ambassadors are representatives of foreign governments sent there at the will of the other government, and invading armies are, of course, not there “in amity”.
Was Obama Sr here “in amity”? Of course. He was here with the permission and assent of the US government. If you can argue that he was either an Ambassador or Invading Army, then under WKA he would NOT be a NBS or thus a NBC. And of course, if he was born outside the US, then all concede he is ineligible.
As for the 2nd Amendment, I don’t understand what is so hard to understand about “shall not be infringed.” I don’t care if he is a convicted felon, once he has done his time, he has the right to keep and bear arms. Period.
Very few people agree with me, even in Arizona, where ‘constitutional carry’ doesn’t extend to ex-felons. Nor is there any chance that I could get the courts to agree with me. So no, I won’t waste time bringing cases. Maybe you have unlimited funds to spend doing stupid things, but I do not. I’ll give money to Jesse Kelly and hope he beats Gabby Giffords. (https://www.votejessekelly.com/civicrm/contribute/transact?reset=1&id=1) At 52, I don’t expect to change the world overnight, nor to do it via the courts. For now, I’d be glad to see other states adopt Arizona gun laws.
If you have spare cash, please give first to Jesse Kelly before spending it filing lawsuits you cannot win. We need to win in politics for 20+ years so we can fill the courts with honest judges first.
When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdoms dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.s children.http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html
Factcheck.org goes on to say this about Obama Sr., Jr. and the British Nationality Act of 1948:
In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html
Even the modern day State Department rules discusses the problems associated with dual citizenship:
7 FAM 081: U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality:http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86563.pdf(e)While recognizing the existence of dual nationality, the U.S. Government does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas. When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person.
...
the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that dual nationality is a "status long recognized in the law" and that "a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both." See Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952).
So, back to the question: "HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?"
It can't. Of course not. Yet, right there, on his campaign web site F.T.S., it's stated that a foreign government "governed" Barry from birth and the reason it did, was that Barry inherited that foreign citizenship by way of his foreign national father (no matter where he was born), a fact backed up by Factcheck.org. Assuming, of course, that Sr. was his legal father at birth.
How, then, could he possibly be a "Natural Born Citizen" of the U.S.?
Barry Soetoro, the divided citizen at birth!
Barack Obama a/k/a Barry Soetoro * | NOT Obama / Soetoro |
![]() |
![]() |
* This assumes HI birth, which is yet to be verified. A citizen of 2 countries at birth. |
Furthermore: Hawaii's Territorial Law, Chapter 57 - "VITAL STATISTICS, I", shown beginning pg 23 of 29, (the law in effect in 1961) allowed the parents (or grandparents or other relative) of baby's born anywhere in the world to be eligible to apply for a Hawaiian birth certificate. A mailed-in form (without mention of a hospital, doctor, or midwife) signed by one of his grandparents (who forged the parent signature(s)) would have been enough to set up a birth record and a birth certificate at the Dept of Health. The Dept of Health would (presumably) then have automatically sent the names of the parents, their address as given on the mailed-in form , the gender of the child, and the date of birth to the Honolulu Advertiser and Star-Bulletin. The address given for the parents in the newspaper announcements is actually, however, the August 1961 home address of Obamas maternal grandparents Stanley and Madelyn Dunham [6085 Kalanianaole Highway], and not the 1961 home address of Barack Obama, Sr. [625 11th Ave].).
Bottom line: Even IF (big IF) he was born in HI, he inherited his father's foreign citizenship as well, making him a US citizen by US law and a subject to the crown of her majesty the Queen of England by inheritance, birthright and England's law. He could not be considered a Natural Born Citizen as known by and as intended by the framers.
================================================================================================================================
What follows, is a bit of information with regards to the Constitutional term "Natural Born Citizen" (specifically) and NOT about the entire makeup, functions, origins and influences that made/make up our form of government, a Constitutional Republic. Clearly, the framers relied upon many different sources to create our new form of government.
Who, or "what" constituted a natural born citizen was well known to the framers. Jay would not have made such a suggestion to the others (Washington & the rest of those in attendance at the Constitutional Convention) unless there was a clear understanding of what that term meant. The definition comes from a source that not only were the framers familiar with, but the founders (many who were both) as well. And yes, even though many could not speak French, most read French (except, notably, Washington who would defer to Jefferson when such interpretation was needed).
NBC in the Constitutional drafts:
June 18th, 1787 - Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: "No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States." Works of Alexander Hamilton (page 407).
July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) - John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." [the word born is underlined in Jay's letter which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth.]
http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29:
September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: "I thank you for the hints contained in your letter"
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documentid=71483
September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay's letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) - The "Natural Born Citizen" requirement is now found in their drafts. Madison's notes of the Convention
The proposal passed unanimously without debate.
Original French version of Vattel's Law of Nations:
Emer de Vattel, Le droit des gens, ou Principes de la loi naturelle, vol. 1 (of 2) [1758]
![]() |
![]()
|
From Chapter XIX, 212 (page 197 of 592) [Note: A ~22 MB PDF]: Title in French: "Des citoyens et naturels" To English: "Citizens and natural" French text (about citizens): "Les citoyens sont les membres de la societe civile : lies a cette societe par certains devoirs et soumis a son autorite, ils participent avec egalite a ses avantages." |
A detailed, historical, etymology of the term "Natural Born Citizen" can be found here: http://www.greschak.com/essays/natborn/index.htm
Prior to the Constitution |
I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel, It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising State make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept (after depositing one in our own publick library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts-Bay, as you directed) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.
"This 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel is of special importance to scholars of constitutional history and law, for it was read by many of the Founders of the United States of America, and informed their understanding of the principles of law which became established in the Constitution of 1787. Chitty's notes and the appended commentaries by Edward D. Ingraham, used in lectures at William and Mary College, provide a valuable perspective on Vattel's exposition from the viewpoint of American jurists who had adapted those principles to the American legal experience."
Vattel's Law of Nations, built upon "natural law - which has it's roots in ancient Greece, was influenced by Leibniz.
Even Blackstone affirmed the basis of natural law:
"This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original (1979, 41). In this passage, Blackstone articulates the two claims that constitute the theoretical core of conceptual naturalism: 1) there can be no legally valid standards that conflict with the natural law; and 2) all valid laws derive what force and authority they have from the natural law."
Thomas Jefferson (for one example) had the 1758 version as well as a 1775 version in his own library:
Thomas Jefferson's Library: A Catalog with the Entries in His Own Order (under a section he titled "Ethics. Law of Nature and Nations."
In AUTOBIOGRAPHY by Thomas Jefferson, he states: "On the 1st of June 1779. I was appointed Governor of the Commonwealth and retired from the legislature. Being elected also one of the Visitors of Wm. & Mary college, a self-electing body, I effected, during my residence in Williamsburg that year, a change in the organization of that institution by abolishing the Grammar school, and the two professorships of Divinity & Oriental languages, and substituting a professorship of Law & Police, one of Anatomy Medicine and Chemistry, and one of Modern languages; and the charter confining us to six professorships, we added the law of Nature & Nations..." This was 8 years prior the the writing of the Constitution! [See the "Law of Nature & Nations" section of his personal library to get an idea of what he included in this curriculum in America's 1st law school].
Note: Vattel, is one of only 10 "footnotes" in Jefferson's Biography, from Yale.
Prior to Jay's famous letter to those in attendance at the Constitutional Convention, we see (one of many exchanges between the founders) a letter from Madison ("father" of the Constitution) to Jay:
"James Madison, as a member of the Continental Congress in 1780, drafted the instructions sent to John Jay, for negotiating a treaty with Spain, which quotes at length from The Law of Nations. Jay complained that this letter, which was probably read by the Spanish government, was not in code, and "Vattel's Law of Nations, which I found quoted in a letter from Congress, is prohibited here.[29]"
From: Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness. How the Natural Law concept of G.W. Leibniz Inspired America's Founding Fathers.
The concepts of "natural law" and the phrase "Laws of Nature" (of which Law of Nations is built upon) are found within the Declaration of Independence itself:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. 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 governedThose (& others) are clearly NOT derived from English law, but rather from natural law concepts (which can be found in Vattel's Law of Nations).
![]() |
![]() |
This accepted translation of 'naturel' in 1781, predates John Jay's 1787 letter to George Washington by 6 years. This 'naturels' means 'natural born' translation in 1781 was subsequently confirmed by the 1797 translation of the part of the relevant sentence and paragraph in Vattel's Law of Nation, Vol.1, Chapter 19, Section 212, that is, "natural-born Citizens, are those born in the country, to parents who are citizens". Thus when the founders and framers wrote the Constitution in 1787 they clearly knew what "natural born Citizen" meant when they upgraded the Citizenship requirement in Article II from simply being a "born Citizen" as proposed by Hamilton to that of being a "natural born Citizen" as recommended by Jay as a strong check against foreign influence on the persons in the future who would be President and Commander of the military. And that meaning was understood to be a person born in the country to parents who are Citizens of the country. Such a person has sole allegiance and unity of citizenship at birth to only the United States. That was the intent of the founders and framers for that legal term of art, natural born Citizen, in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. This restriction on the type of Citizen who could be President was a national security issue to them back then and it is still a national security issue to us now. |
The Constitution |
The concepts of "natural law" continued in the Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect UnionAgain, those phrases are not from England's common law, but rather from natural law and even mention Vattel's book by name, "Law of Nations."...
Article 1. section 8, clause 10:
"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations"
George Mason, In Convention, Richmond (Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution), Wednesday, June 18, 1788:
"We have it in our power to secure our liberties and happiness on the most unshaken, firm, and permanent basis. We can establish what government we please. But by that paper we are consolidating the United States into one great government, and trusting to constructive security. You will find no such thing in the English government. The common law of England is not the common law of these states."
Why natural law, Vattel vs English common law, Blackstone: "The English common law provided that an alien naturalized is to all intents and purposes a natural born subject. Co. Litt. 129 (quoted and cited in Rhodes, 27 F.Cass. at 790). With such recognition, a naturalized citizen would have been eligible to be President of the new Republic."
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.html
After the Constitution is ratified |
Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789.
David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolutions first major historians. A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period.
Ramsay reaffirms the definition a Natural Born Citizen (born in country, to citizen parents (plural)) in 1789 A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789)
The Naturalization Act of 1790, which states (in relevant part) "that the children of citizens [plural] of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens"
Of course, the Act of 1790 was repealed by the Act of 1795 (which did NOT attempt to define or extend the definition for NBC). What the 1st Congress had tried to do in 1790 was to EXTEND the known definition (of born in country to citizen parentS) to those born outside of sovereign territory, to citizen parentS. Of course, they can't do that. Congress (by itself) doesn't have the Constitutional authority to define (or EXTEND) the Constitutional term "Natural Born Citizen." Only a SCOTUS decision on the intent of the framers, or an amendment to the Constitution can do that.
"THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (A case on citizenship and domicile. Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel six (6) times by name, and "law of nations" ten (10) times.) SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel) |
The New Englander, Volume 3 (1845) states: "The expression citizen of the United States occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter, the term natural born citizen is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states."
Note: the "New Englander" was NOT a student law review. The first student law review appeared 30 years later, in 1875/76 at the Albany Law School..
A few of the more notable POTUS references to "law of nations" are:
John Bingham, "father" of the 14th Amendment, the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln's assassins, REAFFIRMED the definition known to the framers by reiterating Vattel's definition...not once, but TWICE during Congressional discussions of Citizenship pertaining to the upcoming 14th Amendment! "All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians." (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)).
every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))" |
SCOTUS, in an 1887 case cites Vattel a number of times and reitterates that his work was translated into English in 1760:
"Vattel in his Law of Nations, which was first printed at Neuchatel in 1758, and was translated into English and published in England in 1760" U S v. ARJONA, 120 U.S. 479 (1887)
It's interesting to note that (non binding) Senate Resolution 511, which attempted to proclaim that Sen. John McCain was a "Natural Born Citizen" because he was born to citizen parentS, even they referenced the (repealed) Naturalization Act of 1790: "Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen'".
Obama, himself, was a signatory of that resolution knowing full well (no doubt) the requirement has always been about 2 citizen parents.
The point is that up until relatively recently, the SCOTUS, the Congress, Presidents and the country were well acquainted with the law of nations and Vattel's edition in particular. It is also that, with the exception of the repealed Act of 1790 which tried to EXTEND the definition, the meaning of the term "Natural Born Citizen" (of the U.S.) has ALWAYS been about being born within the sovereign territory or jurisdiction of the U.S. to 2 citizen parents (& therefore parents who do NOT owe allegiance to another, foreign, country and who often then pass that foreign citizenship & allegiance owed on to their child - by birthright).
This compilation has been added to and improved with the help, hard work and comments of many FReepers (including, but not limited to: Spaulding, bushpilot1, Red Steel, BP2, El Gato) and many of the "eligibility" lawyers and/or their clients (including, but not limited to: Mario Apuzzo, Leo Donfrio)
[it is only a matter of time before 0bama is gone.]
I agree Lucy. Thanks for the ping.
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.