Posted on 01/26/2012 5:55:04 AM PST by RaceBannon
Article II SUPERPAC streaming live video and audio at this link
Droit des Gens..
Les naturels, ou indigenes, font ceux qui font nés dans le pays, de parens citoyens.
Morse referencing the above: the natural born or native is one born in the country to citizen parents.
The Judges, Democrats, Obots, Congress tell us the French “naturels” cannot possibly translate to natural born.
Great bat speed...ya’ just knocked 3 balls out of the park- post 1,162, 1,163 & 1,164.
What’s the big idea throwing facts around here, like you own the place. /s
;o)
From the Journals of Congress 1787
a trade agreement between the US and France, with the agreement shown in both English and French. Within it, “naturels” is translated as “natural born”. In this case refering to subjects/sujets.
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.”
And in English
“The respective Consuls and Vice Consuls shall only be taken from among the natural born subjects of the power nominating them.”
And there you have it. Naturels was understood as “Natural Born”. Thus the later translation better reflects what the founders, many of whom were quite literate in French, would have understood.
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.
Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens. becomes in English, as understood by the founding generations:
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages.
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
I posted page 162..should be page 101. I’ve so many editions. let me dig for page 101.
Per “Piffle” Esq. (IIRC):
"I'm still making book there's a 2:5 chance that he'll birf in a majorly Minor way. If so, he'll claim, “But..but...they made me do it by not opposing the legal authorities argued by Van Aryan and Hatfield. I had no choice. Yadda, yadda.”
"But like they say, yesterday's morning odds are as useful as hip pockets on a hog. And that's why they play the game.
"Edit: Adding a footnote. It's all too easy for us to assume, having read Jablonski's letter to Kemp, as well as several other sources, that Judge Malihi really grasps the fact that he can't make the Constitutional ruling that Van Aryan and Hatfield ask of him. Sure Malihi read the letter. But think about it. In your experience, what do little-minded people do when they read a highly visable letter gutting them like a mullet? Do they really attempt to absorb the the logic? Do they read the cites? Do they calmly assess the political dynamics? Or do they glaze over what they've read, turn beet red and say to themselves, “Fuck him and the horse he rode in on!” The 40% probability I assign to the possibility of him still birfing is about my guess as to whether he fully chilled out. Also, I'd argue that his dispassionate role in the hearing itself — no substantive questions, and an almost palpable lack of interest in Orly's parade — is sometimes consistent with someone who is seething and not confident in his own self-control."
The text book on National Law shall be Vattel.
William and Mary College.
I’m starting to get a sneaking suspicion that you’re trying to tell us something. Are you some kind of NBC proponent? ;o)
KEEP IT UP!!!
Hamilton in his Pacificus essays directly claimed that the law of nations was part of “the laws” in the take care clause:
“The Executive is charged with the execution of all laws, the laws of Nations as well as the municipal law….
The President is the constitutional executor of the laws. Our treaties and the “”laws of nations”” form a part of the law of the land.”
The Politics of Aristotle
“a citizen is defined to be one born of citizen parents”
"Madison writes the law of nations would govern our states. The authority on subject of the law of nations was de Vattel who every Founding Father understood and read. And two, Madison spoke of one common law of these United States - not English Common law - which would be the law of the land." RS
Interested readers can review Vattel Research Thread. The founders knew him..so did chief justice waite. Looking for the runaway page 101.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2512143/posts?q=1&;page=1#1
My understanding of what occurred in chambers was that the petitioners did not want the judge to summarily declare Obama in default. Instead they argued for open presentation of their case evidence to be part of an official court action. If so I agree with that action.
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.