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

Skip to comments.

Jeffrey Toobin Issued False Legal Statements to A. Cooper Regarding Vattel and the 14th Amendment.
naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ^ | 02/17/2011 | Leo Donofrio, Esq.

Posted on 02/17/2011 2:11:54 PM PST by rxsid

"Jeffrey Toobin Issued False Legal Statements to Anderson Cooper Regarding Vattel and the 14th Amendment.

With natural born citizen legislation racing through 11 state legislatures, truthful legal analysis is more important than ever. False statements issued on CNN yesterday via an Anderson Cooper interview with Jeffrey Toobin demand correction. CNN, should they not immediately correct the false statements, will be privy to the stench of propaganda.

Jeffrey Toobin, alleged to be a “CNN Senior Legal Analyst”, gave a clearly false description of Vattel’s definition of “natural born citizen”. Toobin stated that the Vattel definition requires a person to be born in the United States to parents who were also born in the United States.

That is absolutely false.

Vattel’s definition only requires that a person – to be considered a “natural born citizen” – be born in the United States to parents who were citizens. One does not have to be born in the United States to be a citizen. Persons born in foreign countries may become US citizens via the naturalization process despite their place of birth.

If a person is born in the US – of immigrant parents who were not born in the US but who have become US citizens prior to the child’s birth – that child is a natural born citizen according to Vattel. Vattel’s definition of natural born citizen, contained in his treatise, “The Law of Nations“, which – according to Ben Franklin – was with the framers at all times as they wrote the US Constitution, states that a person only needs to be born of parents who were citizens. It does not require that the parents be born in the United States.

This definition by Vattel was re-stated by the US Supreme Court in the case of Minor vs. Happersett. Here is the exact language from the US Supreme Court in the Minor decision:

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

So here we see the US Supreme Court stating that persons born in the US to parents who are citizens are themselves natural born citizens. Nowhere does it state that the parents must be born in the US. The following definition is attributed to Vattel:

“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.”

This does not impose a requirement that the parents must have been born in the country. To this definition, Jeffrey Toobin falsely stated:

“What Vattel said was natural born citizens means you were born in the United States and your parents are also born in the United States.”

Furthermore, Toobin contributed additional false legal analysis when he stated:

“But the words of the Constitution have been interpreted many times by the Supreme Court, and what it means is born in the United States.”

That is unequivocally false.

First, to be a “citizen”, the 14th Amendment requires that a person be born in the US (or be naturalized in the US) and… that a person be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. Despite erroneous popular belief, there is no US Supreme Court decision which states that simply being born in the US is enough to entitle a person to US citizenship. That is a legal myth to which Toobin is also guilty of spreading false legal analysis.

Second, the 14th Amendment does not define “natural born citizen”, it only defines “citizen”. Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution makes a clear distinction between a “citizen” – who is eligible to be a Senator or Representative – and a “natural born citizen” - who is eligible to be President.

Toobin has therefore issued clearly false legal statements. Either these are lies for propaganda purposes, or he’s just a terrible legal analyst.

If Anderson Cooper would like to have a serious debate between myself and Toobin, or any other so called “Senior Legal Analyst”, I would be happy to oblige.

And if legislators in the State of Montana – or any other state – would like legal guidance on this issue, I would also be happy to oblige.

Please contact me at:

leo_donofrio2000@yahoo.com

Leo Donofrio, Esq."

From: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/02/16/jeffrey-toobin-issued-false-legal-statements-to-anderson-cooper-regarding-vattel-and-the-14th-amendment/


TOPICS: Government; History; Military/Veterans; Politics
KEYWORDS: 14thamendment; donofrio; february2011; naturalborncitizen; ntsa; obama; wrldsdmbstcnsprcy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-97 next last
HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?
1 posted on 02/17/2011 2:12:00 PM PST by rxsid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LucyT; warsaw44; ColdOne; Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!; GQuagmire; wintertime; Fred Nerks; ...
Ping!

Leo is back...

"Jeffrey Toobin Issued False Legal Statements to Anderson Cooper Regarding Vattel and the 14th Amendment."

2 posted on 02/17/2011 2:12:55 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

A few states have to pass the BC eligibility laws. The attacks by the media prove he is not eligible.


3 posted on 02/17/2011 2:16:01 PM PST by Frantzie (HD TV - Total Brain-washing now in High Def. 3-D Coming soon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
Either these are lies for propaganda purposes, or he’s just a terrible legal analyst.
Or both. I vote for both.
4 posted on 02/17/2011 2:16:31 PM PST by oh8eleven (RVN '67-'68)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
Vattel didn't use the phrase “Natural born citizen” at all, but instead “Les naturels, or indigenes” the ‘natives or indigenous’.
5 posted on 02/17/2011 2:21:24 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Of course. Read my profile.


6 posted on 02/17/2011 2:23:25 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

In the discussions leading up to the 14th amendment it was made clear that being born here was not to be considered as attaining citizenship. This was not even controversial.


7 posted on 02/17/2011 2:25:51 PM PST by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid; onyx; penelopesire; maggief; hoosiermama; SE Mom; seekthetruth; television is just wrong; ...

.. Ping!


8 posted on 02/17/2011 2:27:27 PM PST by STARWISE (The overlords are in place .. we are a nation under siege .. pray, go Galt & hunker down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
Now available at bookstores near you......


9 posted on 02/17/2011 2:29:27 PM PST by CanaGuy (Go Harper! We still love you!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Leo is back in the saddle? Interesting.


10 posted on 02/17/2011 2:33:20 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

WELCOME BACK LEO!!


11 posted on 02/17/2011 2:35:38 PM PST by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob
"In the discussions leading up to the 14th amendment it was made clear that being born here was not to be considered as attaining citizenship. This was not even controversial."

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!

Vattel's definition for "natural born citizen" was read into the Congressional Record during the Civil War.

"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)).

 

Vattel's definition for "natural born citizen" was read into the Congressional Record after the Civil War.

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))"

Nobody questioned or debated Congressman Bingham on who was a "natural born Citizen." They ALL knew exactly what the Constitutional phrase meant. Born in the sovereign territory to 2 citizen parents.

12 posted on 02/17/2011 2:37:39 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Well then, such “of course” should have been made clear in the article.

So in your estimation, if China decided to grant automatic Chinese citizenship to all people of 50% of greater Chinese ancestry - do you think that as a result of this Chinese law, no natural born citizen of America of Chinese descent could ever be President under American law?


13 posted on 02/17/2011 2:38:32 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

it just gets louder and louder...


14 posted on 02/17/2011 2:43:04 PM PST by phockthis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob
unfortunately however the case ( United States v. Wong Kim Ark 1898) does change what the founders believed (what Vattel wrote in the law of nations) that subjugation or citizenship flowed from the fathers citizenship not the place of birth.

“The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

Order affirmed. “

15 posted on 02/17/2011 2:50:10 PM PST by waynesa98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Duh, he wrote the first edition in Frencjh. Which many of the founders, including Franklin, were fluent in. They didn’t need to wait for a Translation, they already KNEW what it meant.


16 posted on 02/17/2011 2:56:08 PM PST by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Duh, he wrote the first edition in French. Which many of the founders, including Franklin, were fluent in. They didn’t need to wait for a Translation, they already KNEW what it meant.


17 posted on 02/17/2011 2:56:13 PM PST by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
Has the Supreme Court ever addressed the issue of what happens to a person born in the United States who becomes a citizen of another country as a minor? Must he take affirmative steps to reacquire US citizenship or if he returns to the US can he carry on as if a US citizen?

If someone born in the US gives up his citizenship, does that get noted on the original birth certificate? If so, that may be why Obama refuses to make his birth certificate public.

18 posted on 02/17/2011 2:58:51 PM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Danae

Natives or indigenous is what it meant.

Only later, after the writing of the Constitution, was it ‘translated’ as “natural born citizen”.


19 posted on 02/17/2011 2:58:52 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

“Jeffrey Toobin, alleged to be a “CNN Senior Legal Analyst”, gave a clearly false description of Vattel’s definition of “natural born citizen”. Toobin stated that the Vattel definition requires a person to be born in the United States to parents who were also born in the United States.”

However incorrect this statement may be, he has just proven that if B0’s father was indeed BO, B0 can’t be a natural born Citizen because BO wasn’t born in the US. Thanks, Jeff.


20 posted on 02/17/2011 2:59:18 PM PST by Larry - Moe and Curly (Loose lips sink ships.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

What China decides to grant in now way affects what country a given person owes allegiance to with regard to Natural Born Citizenship. Natural Born Citizenship is determined at birth, and is in fact a CONDITION of Birth.


21 posted on 02/17/2011 3:00:07 PM PST by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Your nitpicking is irrelevant. The founders were perfectly capable of reading the original french.

Besides, Vattels defination has been entered into the congressional record on a couple of occasions. A Natural Born Citizen is onw born to TWO parents who are citizens and that child being born upon our soil.

Thats it. End of argument.

Sorry. Next.


22 posted on 02/17/2011 3:02:45 PM PST by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
"Well then, such “of course” should have been made clear in the article."

1st, the article was written by someone else (i.e I'm not Leo Donofrio). 2nd, check my posting in #1.

"So in your estimation, if China decided to grant automatic Chinese citizenship to all people of 50% of greater Chinese ancestry - do you think that as a result of this Chinese law, no natural born citizen of America of Chinese descent could ever be President under American law?"

Such a law would not apply to people not currently under the jurisdiction of Chinese law. Further, it wouldn't be recognized internationally save for perhaps N.K. and the like. Lastly, "natural born Citizen" is based on natural law, not "man's" law.

23 posted on 02/17/2011 3:10:32 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
So then I'm not a “natural born” citizen? Born in the U.S. to a U.S. citizen mom and a legal alien dad.

Damm! And I was planning on running in 2012 too.

24 posted on 02/17/2011 3:14:28 PM PST by Sergio (An object at rest cannot be stopped! - The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Danae
The argument I am responding to is this....

0bama, because of his British citizenship at birth under British law, cannot be a “natural born citizen” of the United States under U.S. law.

My argument is response is this....

So if China decides that all people of 50% or greater Chinese descent automatically have Chinese citizenship at birth under Chinese law, under the above argument, no American of Chinese descent can ever be a “natural born citizen” of the United States.

I agree with your statement that “What (any nation) decides to grant in no way affects what country a given person owes allegiance to with regard to Natural Born Citizenship”.

As such I reject the idea that because of British law, an otherwise “natural born citizen” of these United States under U.S. law will suddenly not be. I reject that idea utterly.

25 posted on 02/17/2011 3:14:36 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
Our law was founded on the principles of natural law, and as such all good and proper laws will comport with natural philosophy. Our own citizenship laws, as a reflection of natural laws, recognize citizenship at birth through both blood and soil - but has never established a criteria for both.

Vattel wasn't the first and last word on what “natural law” entails. He is not a secular saint with his words elevated to canon law beyond reproach abridgment or amendment.

And he never did use the term “natural born citizen”.

26 posted on 02/17/2011 3:22:33 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: rxsid; STARWISE
Thanks for the ping!

Vattel definition requires a person to be born in the United States to parents who were also born in the United States.

So even though he got it wrong, under his definition bammie is still not eleigible....lol, they're skeerd.

27 posted on 02/17/2011 3:34:45 PM PST by Las Vegas Ron (The Tree of Liberty did not grow from an ACORN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Danae; allmendream

I’m going to throw my two cents in here: an English translation of Vattel’s book, Law of Nations, was available in 1791-1792. This would have made it available to non-french reading attendees at the creation of the U.S.Constitution.


28 posted on 02/17/2011 3:49:23 PM PST by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS OUR PRESIDENT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
And in THOSE translations it was translated as “natives or indigenous”.

Only after the writing of the U.S. Constitution did English translations of Vattel change the translation to “natural born citizens”.

Vattel himself never used that term.

29 posted on 02/17/2011 3:51:47 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
Toobin has therefore issued clearly false legal statements. Either these are lies for propaganda purposes, or he’s just a terrible legal analyst.

It's the former, I assure you!

We shouldn't be diplomatic with lying communists. We should smack them as liars NOT idiots who don't know what they're talking about.

The questions asked by Anderson Cooper in the interview with the Montana Rep. were rehearsed with Toobin and designed to put words in the Rep’s mouth who didn’t appear to be the sharpest knife in the drawer.

30 posted on 02/17/2011 3:51:57 PM PST by melancholy (Papa Alinsky, Enslavement Specialist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Do you have a copy of the 1792 Law of Nations?


31 posted on 02/17/2011 4:00:09 PM PST by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS OUR PRESIDENT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Sergio
So then I'm not a “natural born” citizen?

A status you share with the 2nd of my 3 sons.

#1 was born in Bangkok. His mother was a Thai Citizen. He acquired US Citizenship at Birth though me. He has both a certificate issued by our embassy in Bangkok, and a Thai birth certificate.

#2 was born in Michigan. His mother was still a Thai Citizen. He has a Michigan issued birth certificate.

#3 was born in Michigan and by that time his mother had become a Naturalized US Citizen. He was born in Michigan to TWO US Citizens. Of the three he is the only Natural Born Citizen.
He will be 35 soon, so by 1012 will be eligible to be President unlike the current Resident of the United States.

32 posted on 02/17/2011 4:01:03 PM PST by ASA Vet (Natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. De Vattel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; Danae; devattel
"Natives or indigenous is what it meant.

Only later, after the writing of the Constitution, was it ‘translated’ as “natural born citizen”.

In 1787 Natural and Native were synonymous.

The royal dictionary, french and english, and english and french
Author: A. Boyer
Publisher: T. Osborne, 1764
Original from Ghent University

From: http://books.google.com/books?id=k7c_AAAAcAAJ

 

The royal dictionary English and French and French and English: extracted from the writings of the best authors in both languages
Author: Abel Boyer
Publisher: printed by John Mary Bruyset, 1768
Original from the Complutense University of Madrid

From: http://books.google.com/books?id=6POB0yOidU4C

 

The new royal and universal English dictionary ...: To which is prefixed, a grammar of the English language, Volume 2
Author: J. Johnson
Publisher: Millard, 1763
Original from Columbia University

From: http://books.google.com/books?id=OmtHAAAAYAAJ

 

A dictionary of the English language. Abstracted from the folio ed., by the author. To which is prefixed, an English grammar. To this ed. are added, a history of the English language
Author: Samuel Johnson
Edition: 3
Published: 1768
Original from: Oxford University

From: http://books.google.com/books?id=bXsCAAAAQAAJ

 

The new spelling dictionary
Author: John Entick
Published: 1780
Original from: University of Lausanne

From: http://books.google.com/books?id=xZUPAAAAQAAJ


33 posted on 02/17/2011 4:02:15 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

Yes, of course; don’t you?


34 posted on 02/17/2011 4:02:46 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Larry - Moe and Curly
"“Jeffrey Toobin, alleged to be a “CNN Senior Legal Analyst”, gave a clearly false description of Vattel’s definition of “natural born citizen”. Toobin stated that the Vattel definition requires a person to be born in the United States to parents who were also born in the United States.”

However incorrect this statement may be, he has just proven that if B0’s father was indeed BO, B0 can’t be a natural born Citizen because BO wasn’t born in the US. Thanks, Jeff.

----------------------------------------------------

Excellent point! And they ... Anderson Cooper and Toobin are too stupid to have even realized what Toobin just said!

35 posted on 02/17/2011 4:04:12 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

No, but then I don’t need one. I’m a French linguist.


36 posted on 02/17/2011 4:04:35 PM PST by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS OUR PRESIDENT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Obviously Vattel didn't write his legal treatise to state "natural born Citizen." I mean, seriously. He wrote the thing in French, which reads:

Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens

Translated to English, gives this:

the natural, or indigenous, are those born in the country, parents who are citizens

37 posted on 02/17/2011 4:10:39 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
I'm a cunning linguist.

The first English translation of Vattel that included the term “natural born citizens” as a translation was in 1797.

That is 10 years after the Constitution was ratified.

And who made Vattel a secular saint, the divine arbiter of Natural Law, never to be altered amended or abridged?

38 posted on 02/17/2011 4:11:50 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Reject if if you like, Obama was born with British citizenship. You cannot be a citizen with a second citizenship and be a Natural Born Citizen. TWO nations laid claim to Obama, LEGALLY by virtue of his citizenship at the instant of his birth.

This is why the Natural Born Citizen clause is in the Constitution with regard to qualifying for POTUS. It was a common sense National Security Matter to insure that the person who seeks to be POTUS ONLY had one citizenship possiblity from the instant of his/her birth, and carried forward that same status all their life.

Obama ADMITS he has held in his life, US, and British and Kenyan citizenship. He is LITERALLY relying on your (and all the rest of America’s) ignorance of history, and ignorance of what a Natural Born Citizen IS.

Yes, Obama is relying on your ignorance. So hold to it if you like. The Sun rises in the east, and Obama was never, could never have been a Natural Born Citizen. It doesn’t matter WHERE he was born, he would have been born with British Citizenship if he was born in JFK’s lap.

Obama is an Usurper, and we do not have a constitutional government.

REMOVE THE CRETIN NOW.


39 posted on 02/17/2011 4:18:15 PM PST by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron

BINGO!

LOL


40 posted on 02/17/2011 4:19:09 PM PST by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

What you or I think or believe doesn’t matter.

What matters is the original intent of the founders and their creation, the U.S. Constitution.

There is a great deal of historical evidence, mainly in the private papers of the Lee family of Virginia and the Adams family of Massachusetts, supporting the interpretation of Natural Born Citizen as being “born in a nation of citizen parents”.


41 posted on 02/17/2011 4:24:20 PM PST by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS OUR PRESIDENT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Danae

;)


42 posted on 02/17/2011 4:25:01 PM PST by Las Vegas Ron (The Tree of Liberty did not grow from an ACORN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
Thats true, but the founders had copies of the book for all the meetings and conferences when writing the constitution. A good many of them spoke and read french. Many of the founders, Ben Franklin is an example, was very very fluent.

Federalist number 76 by Hamilton ALSO refers to Vattels definition, an NBC is someone born to two parentS who were citizenS and that child was born upon the soil of the land. There could be ZERO question at all with regard to that childs citizenship status, and THAT is the ultimate gage that the founders sought.

They had ZERO interest in allowing someone to wiggle through on a loophole and get into the Office.

We as Americans should be ashamed for forgetting these basic tenant's, which are simple common sense concepts.

No one with ANY other citizenship possibility SHOULD be president. They sought to ensure that NO ONE ever would be. We failed them, it is up to us to rectify it.

The Cretin should be removed immediately.

43 posted on 02/17/2011 4:26:03 PM PST by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Danae
Thats it. End of argument.

Sorry. Next.

If it's really the end of the argument this Vattel theory gets thrown out as alien to our legal traditions. No appellate court is going to accept it.

The burden of proof is on you. You're the ones who want new action in this matter.

If you want your argument to have a hearing it's in your interest to keep the discussion going, not to shut it down with snappy one-word sentences.

44 posted on 02/17/2011 4:26:35 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

It is so sexy when you post like that... ;)


45 posted on 02/17/2011 4:28:17 PM PST by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Good post, funny how you didn’t get a reply.


46 posted on 02/17/2011 4:28:43 PM PST by Las Vegas Ron (The Tree of Liberty did not grow from an ACORN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Danae

So what if Britain decides that ALL U.S. citizens, the USA being a former colonial possession, are now British citizens at birth?

Nobody born after the date of that British law would be a natural born citizen of the United States?

Every American citizen would be claimed by both nations at the instant of their birth.

So is who is going to be a natural born citizen of these United States determined by

a) American Law

Or

b) British Law

????


47 posted on 02/17/2011 4:32:21 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: x
Sorry, when I am right, I say I am right. I am not going to prevaricate just to make you happy.

I do not have a case before a court capable of removing the Cretin. That would be the Hollister case, which just got rescheduled for March. There is a thread on FR about that right now.

So I will have to assume you are just being snarky, and or just found out you aren't a Natural Born Citizen and don't want to believe that this definition is the correct one.

A Natural Born Citizen is one born to two parents who are citizens, and born on the soil of their Nation.

48 posted on 02/17/2011 4:33:39 PM PST by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Excellent post.
BUMP


49 posted on 02/17/2011 4:33:56 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Danae

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa76.htm

Where?


50 posted on 02/17/2011 4:36:16 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-97 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