Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Research - Vattel & the meaning of the Constitutional term "Natural Born Citizen"
http://www.loc.gov/index.html ^ | 5/12/2010 | many

Posted on 05/12/2010 12:36:53 PM PDT by rxsid

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 from the U.S. Constitution states:

"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States."


TOPICS: Politics
KEYWORDS: certifigate; constitution; framers; naturalborncitizen; nbc; vattel
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420 ... 541-551 next last
To: DiogenesLamp; bushpilot1

Good find, indeed.

Another link in the chain of evidence.

The MSM and the politicians never ventured to question that dog and pony show Obama staged when he posted his new forged long-form COLB and then distracted attention from it with the bin Ladin raid.

But the birth issue is still unresolved. As before, the left will keep putting it to bed or sweeping it under the rug or insulting anyone who brings it up, but it’s not going to go away.


381 posted on 10/26/2011 3:08:56 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
The only problem here is that there is a distinct difference between allegiance & obedience. Allegiance assumes individual sovereignty with ones rights defined by God Almighty; obedience assumes servitude to a person with rights defined by that person who claims to be the only sovereign owner of all things in the kingdom, including the people.
382 posted on 10/26/2011 3:19:15 PM PDT by patlin ("Knowledge is a powerful source that is 2nd to none but God" ConstitutionallySpeaking 2011)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
Founder Robert Yates on our Constitution, the law of nations, quitting one's citizenship (1776), natural born Citizen and Vattel, published in the 1797 Hall's Wilmington Gazette:

I think this extremely significant. The Obots seem to think that common law was the prevailing law for defining citizenship, but it did NOT allow anyone to quit being a subject of the crown, IIRC. Why would the founders subscribe to the notion that they COULD quit their citizenship to Britain and become U.S. citizens by self-declaration?? Because they didn't follow common law; they followed natural law as expressed through Vattel's writings. This citation illustrates their rejection of common law, at least on this matter, very clearly. Great find.

383 posted on 10/26/2011 3:32:00 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 361 | View Replies]

To: patlin

One of J. Adams books

http://www.archive.org/stream/principlesofnatu01burl#page/n31/mode/2up


384 posted on 10/26/2011 3:43:20 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
These books are great for understanding what the founders read, but until it is found in historical debate papers from 1787-1789, it won't change the debate.

I have come to believe that while we should study history & our country's founding, YHVH placed Obama in office for a reason...to test the virtues of men who claim to be children of HIS. Unfortunately they all have failed HIS test and I will not vote for another, even if that means leaving my ballot blank other than to vote on issues. The only person I could vote for in any future election must show the virtue of our founders and right now, not one of them has an ounce of it in them.

385 posted on 10/26/2011 4:08:56 PM PDT by patlin ("Knowledge is a powerful source that is 2nd to none but God" ConstitutionallySpeaking 2011)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 384 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1; DiogenesLamp

Excellent research, Diogenes, and thanks for the ping, bp. It is fascinating to read the reference, which makes perfect sense in the context of natural-born citizenship. My angle is that I find it unimaginable that Founders meant, by ‘natural born citizen’, ‘the spawn of foreign/enemy nationals’. It’s absurd to think that was their idea. They were not, iow, codifying the King of England’s right to sire future POTUSs. Those who argue otherwise are beyond the realm of my comprehension. I think like a patriot, and no patriot I know wants a half-foreigner to lord it over us. The odds of half-foreigners hating the US and/or lacking allegiance to it are much greater than for natural born citizens.


386 posted on 10/26/2011 4:17:59 PM PDT by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies]

To: patlin

“The principles of the laws of nature are through the wisdom of the Creator.”

“They are the views of the Almighty”

“If there be any common law between them (nations) it must proceed from God their common sovereign”

from the previous link


387 posted on 10/26/2011 4:18:42 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter

Countless obots told us..the Framers merely changed the wording natural born subject to natural born citizen.

The spin cometh....


388 posted on 10/26/2011 4:28:03 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 386 | View Replies]

To: patlin

Well said.


389 posted on 10/26/2011 4:28:38 PM PDT by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 385 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

“Charming Betsy” Canon


390 posted on 10/26/2011 4:39:16 PM PDT by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: patlin; bushpilot1; DiogenesLamp
These books are great for understanding what the founders read, but until it is found in historical debate papers from 1787-1789, it won't change the debate.

Quite true, and I would add as long as the debate remains open - which is the desire of O operatives - the outcome is uncertain. A simple analogy here is repetitive ballot counting, newly discovered ballots, etc.

IMO, the controlling fact is what the ratifiers understood the language to mean when they signed the Constitution. In that regard, the Minor decision provides the answer.

(Although I would have the Geo Washington letters provided by DL elsewhere a few days ago stacked on the counsel's table - that was the future president talking to the future ratifiers!)

391 posted on 10/26/2011 4:48:34 PM PDT by frog in a pot (Their bible calls for either our conversion or our death - how and when has that changed ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 385 | View Replies]

To: patlin

My hunch it will be located in a scribbling on a book..a letter..a note..a manuscript.

It could be located in Nugents manuscript when he (MAY have) translated the 1797 edition published after his death. I say may because Jefferson could have translated the 1797.

Its there.


392 posted on 10/26/2011 4:50:25 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 385 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Have you seen what justia.com did? They scubbed references to mi I vs happersatt which scotus ruled that NBC is born to two citizen parents


393 posted on 10/26/2011 5:22:26 PM PDT by tutstar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 379 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1; DiogenesLamp; rxsid

“Suggest you post a thread. Mr Rogers head is going to explode.”

Why? It repeats what the WKA decision says.

“II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.”

And

“Mr. Dicey, in his careful and thoughtful Digest of the Law of England with reference to the Conflict of Laws, published in 1896, states the following propositions, his principal rules being printed below in italics:

“British subject” means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the Crown. “Permanent” allegiance is used to distinguish the allegiance of a British subject from the allegiance of an alien who, because he is within the British dominions, owes “temporary” allegiance to the Crown. “Natural-born British subject” means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.” “Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject. This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality.”

I’m glad to see you finally agree with me. It’s been a long slog convincing you...


394 posted on 10/26/2011 5:28:04 PM PDT by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
JustiaGate: CEO Tim Stanley Claims Innocense After Blocking Access To Wayback Machine Snapshots Of All Supreme Court Cases Published By Justia.

Justia altered records so that people couldn't search for Minor v Happersatt. SCOTUS ruling in this case was that nbc is one born to TWO citizen parents. They have placed txt.robots so that the wayback machine can't access the pages.

395 posted on 10/26/2011 5:59:36 PM PDT by tutstar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Well, well, well. Adams and Adams, no less. Better hold on to all of this research since the usurper has escalated his scrubbing of the internet in recent days.


396 posted on 10/26/2011 7:31:46 PM PDT by bgill (The Obama administration is staging a coup. Wake up, America, before it's too late.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; Berlin_Freeper; Hotlanta Mike; Silentgypsy; repubmom; HANG THE EXPENSE; Nepeta; ...
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

. . . . Check out 376, then read to end of page.

Thanks for the images and comments, DiogenesLamp.

SP alert...

397 posted on 10/27/2011 12:57:18 AM PDT by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Wonderful find!


398 posted on 10/27/2011 9:04:01 AM PDT by Lady Jag (Notice how the Democrat party is all Democratic now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: edge919
That's exactly correct. Words from one of the framers himself.

Had the framers adhered to the English version of common law, there never would have been a Declaration of Independence since English common law didn't allow one to quit their allegiance to the crown. This is clear proof that (at least) in 1776, the colonist's began to break free from English common law and began to create our common law.

In fact, some Brits still believe the Declaration was illegal:

Declaration of Independence was illegal, claim British lawyers

And on FR: Is the US Declaration of Independence illegal?

To reiterate, the Declaration of Independence and the birth our our country was illegal under British common law at the time.

Those arguing that the framers remained using English common law for the federal government are on the side of those Brittish lawyers who believe our Independence was illegal.

The framers clearly moved towards natural law when they "quit" their allegiance to the crown.

399 posted on 10/27/2011 9:29:38 AM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; LucyT

This is what I call a post!

EXCELLENT WORK!


400 posted on 10/27/2011 10:07:41 AM PDT by Absolutely Nobama (Chairman Obama And Ron Paul Are Sure Signs The Republic Is In Serious Trouble. God Help Us All.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420 ... 541-551 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson