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

Skip to comments.

ARE ARIZONA LAWMAKERS NOW TRYING TO COVER FOR OBAMA’S INELIGIBILITY?
The Post & Email ^ | Feb. 27, 2011 | Mario Apuzzo

Posted on 02/27/2011 7:26:01 PM PST by STE=Q

Arizona is considering passing a law that, among other things, would allow a child born in the U.S. to one or two alien parents to be recognized as a “natural born Citizen.” Such a law would be passed in error. Apart from the proposed law being unconstitutional for violating the Supremacy Clause and the Pre-emption Doctrine, a law that recognizes an Article II “natural born Citizen” as including a child born in the U.S. to one or two alien parents would be contrary to what the Founders and Framers designed as a national security safeguard for the Offices of President and Commander in Chief of the Military. In this article, I will address only that part of the proposed law that attempts to define what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is and specifically that part of the law that includes as an Article II “natural born Citizen” a child born in the U.S. to one or two alien parents. In a follow up article, I will address the other parts of the proposed law that I will show are also unconstitutional.

(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...


TOPICS: Politics
KEYWORDS: apuzzo; arizona; birthers; bogus; certifigate; naturalborncitizen; nbc; obama; unconstitutional; usurper

1 posted on 02/27/2011 7:26:06 PM PST by STE=Q
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LucyT

Ping!

STE=Q


2 posted on 02/27/2011 7:28:17 PM PST by STE=Q ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government" ... Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Nooooo! They’re going the wrong way!


3 posted on 02/27/2011 7:30:01 PM PST by jackibutterfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q
sounds like a bogus report.

Last I heard Arizona was working on a law that would eliminate "anchor babies" -- children born on US soil of parents who were in country illegally.

They would not issue a birth certificate.

4 posted on 02/27/2011 7:32:39 PM PST by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance On Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: okie01

Leo Donofrio mentioned this last Friday. Sounds like McCain inside job. Another corrupt state. People in AZ need to call.


5 posted on 02/27/2011 7:37:03 PM PST by Frantzie (HD TV - Total Brain-washing now in High Def. 3-D Coming soon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q

Arizona could pass a law saying babies are pineapples. In a sane world, the legislative branch would never validate a presidential election with one of these babies...oh wait.


6 posted on 02/27/2011 7:43:20 PM PST by lacrew (Mr. Soetoro, we regret to inform you that your race card is over the credit limit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q

Arizona could pass a law saying babies are pineapples. In a sane world, the legislative branch would never validate a presidential election with one of these babies...oh wait.


7 posted on 02/27/2011 7:43:20 PM PST by lacrew (Mr. Soetoro, we regret to inform you that your race card is over the credit limit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie
Leo Donofrio mentioned this last Friday. Sounds like McCain inside job. Another corrupt state. People in AZ need to call.

I was caught off guard by this report.

I had thought AZ was on the right track.

STE=Q

8 posted on 02/27/2011 7:44:02 PM PST by STE=Q ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government" ... Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q

Since the child is already considered natural born if one parent is a US citizen this doesn’t change anything as far as I can see. Urkle was born to an underage citizen and at that time that was not sufficient but the law was later changed which, of course, does not affect him.


9 posted on 02/27/2011 7:45:59 PM PST by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q
I assume their intentions are good but they better consult with Leo on how to reword this.
10 posted on 02/27/2011 7:48:03 PM PST by Art in Idaho (Conservatism is the only hope for Western Civilization.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie; STE=Q; warsaw44; ColdOne; Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!; GQuagmire; wintertime; ...
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

ARE ARIZONA LAWMAKERS NOW TRYING TO COVER FOR 0BAMA’S INELIGIBILITY?

Thanks, STE=Q.

-

Leo Donofrio mentioned this last Friday. Sounds like McCain inside job.

11 posted on 02/27/2011 7:48:03 PM PST by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jackibutterfly
The one hallmark of a Natural Born Citizen that has remained constant is that said citizen needs NO LAW to make him what he was born to.

The Magic Marxist Mombasa Moonbeam has tied this country in knots. He is counting on Rule Number 1 in the American interracial dialog:
Thou shalt never utter an unpleasant truth to a Negro.

(a) Barry, you are not a Negro.
(b) You are not a white man.
(c)You are neither flesh, nor fowl, nor good red meat. In fact we don't even really really know if you are an American, thanks to your smokescreens.
(d) If your antecedents are appropriate to the office, do let us know, or
(e)GTF out of town.

It was Barry who should have asked for a ruling on Natural Born Citizenship, BEFORE he ran. His father was not a citizen. Never was, never intended to become one. End of story. Born in Hawaii? Gosh! That's nice. Speaking of corrupt states, why is Barry no longer on the Illinois Bar. Can we unseal those records? We know he lied on the app. Come on, it's Illinois. Al Capone's kid was a member of the Bar. I mean you gotta go some to get asked off that outfit.

And now a personal question: Barry what's with the skull scars. I don't need X-Rays, just tell me wtf they are. I knew, against my will really, very inch of Ronald Reagan's colon. Why can't you pull your head out of yours and fill us in on that intriguing aspect of your suppressed medical history?

12 posted on 02/27/2011 7:48:36 PM PST by Kenny Bunk (Odd, but I never had to ask, "Who, or what exactly is Dwight Eisenhower?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q
There is ONE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT for a person to be a "natural born citizen".

BOTH parents must be American Citizens.

We don't need no stinking birth certificate!!! All that is a smokescreen!!!
13 posted on 02/27/2011 7:49:40 PM PST by djf (Dems and liberals: Let's redefine "marriage". We already redefined "natural born citizen".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

When this first surfaced I couldn’t believe they’d be so stupid. Only one parent needed to be a US citizen for the kid to be a NBC???@?!@?!

Nonsense and WHY would they do this?


14 posted on 02/27/2011 7:51:57 PM PST by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: okie01
Arizona SB1308

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:

Section 1.  Title 36, chapter 3, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding article 6, to read:

ARTICLE 6.  INTERSTATE BIRTH CERTIFICATE COMPACT

START_STATUTE36-361.  Adoption of compact; text of compact

The governor is authorized and directed to enter into a compact on behalf of this state with any of the United States lawfully joined in the compact in a form substantially as follows:

ARTICLE I

Findings and declaration of policy

It is the purpose of this compact through the joint and cooperative action among the party states to make a distinction in the birth certificates, certifications of live birth or other birth records issued in the party states between a person born in the party state who is born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and a person who is not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. A person who is born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a natural born United States citizen.

ARTICLE II

Definition

As used in this compact, "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" has the meaning that it bears in section 1 of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution, namely that the person is a child of at least one parent who owes no allegiance to any foreign sovereignty, or a child without citizenship or nationality in any foreign country. For the purposes of this compact a person who owes no allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is a United States citizen or national, or an immigrant accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the united states, or a person without nationality in any foreign country.

ARTICLE III

Terms

Notwithstanding any state or federal law to the contrary, each party state shall make a distinction in the birth certificates, certifications of live birth or other birth records issued in the party states, between a person born in the party state who is born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and a person who is not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. A person who is born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a natural born United States citizen.

ARTICLE IV

Enforcement

Notwithstanding any state or federal law to the contrary:

1.  The governor of each party state shall enforce this agreement and compact.

2.  A taxpaying resident of any party state has standing in the courts of any party state to require the governor of any party state to enforce this agreement and compact.

ARTICLE V

Compact administrator and interchange of information

A.  The governor of each party state or the governor's designee is the compact administrator. The compact administrator shall:

1.  Maintain an accurate list of all party states.

2.  Formulate all necessary and proper procedures to effectuate this compact.

3.  Delegate needed tasks to other state agencies.

B.  The compact administrator of each party state shall furnish to the compact administrator of each party state any information or documents that are reasonably necessary to facilitate the administration of this compact.

ARTICLE VI

Entry into effect and withdrawal

A.  This compact is deemed accepted when at least two states deliver a notice of confirmation, which is duly executed by their respective authorized representative and which acknowledges complete agreement to the terms of this compact, to each other's governor, the office of the clerk of the United States house of representatives, the office of the secretary of the United States senate, the president of the United States senate and the speaker of the United States house of representatives. Thereafter, the compact is deemed accepted by any state when a respective notice of confirmation, which is duly executed by the state's respective authorized representative and which acknowledges complete agreement to the terms of this compact, is delivered to each party state's compact administrator, the office of the clerk of the United States house of representatives, the office of the secretary of the United States senate, the president of the United States senate and the speaker of the United States house of representatives.

B. This compact shall not take effect until the United States congress has given its consent pursuant to article I, section 10, clause 3 of the United States Constitution.

C.  Four years after this compact first becomes effective, any party state may withdraw from this compact by enacting a joint resolution declaring such withdrawal and delivering notice of the withdrawal to each other party state. A withdrawal does not affect the validity or applicability of the compact to states remaining party to the compact.

ARTICLE VII

Construction and severability

A.  This compact shall be liberally construed so as to effectuate its purposes.

B.  This compact is intended to operate as the law of the nation with respect to the party states under 4 United States Code section 112, to supersede any inconsistent state and federal law and to establish vested rights in favor of residents of the party states.

C.  If any phrase, clause, sentence or provision of this compact is declared in a final judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction to be contrary to the constitution of the United States or is otherwise held invalid, the validity of the remainder of this compact shall not be affected.

D.  If the applicability of any phrase, clause, sentence or provision of this compact to any government, agency, person or circumstance is declared in a final judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction to be contrary to the constitution of the United States or is otherwise held invalid, the validity of the remainder of this compact and the applicability of the remainder of this compact to any government, agency, person or circumstance shall not be affected.

E.  If this compact is held to be contrary to the constitution of any party state, the compact shall remain in full force and effect as to the remaining party states and in full force and effect as to the affected party state as to all severable matters.END_STATUTE

15 posted on 02/27/2011 7:53:41 PM PST by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q

The stupidity of this article is higlighted by this:

“Arizona’s proposed law would defeat the whole purpose of the Framers using the natural law definition of a “natural born Citizen” as the standard to be met by any would-be President and Commander in Chief. There is good reason why the Framers relied upon natural law to provide the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Under natural law which when applied to nations become the law of nations, a “natural born Citizen” is defined as “those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) “

Ah, yes....in 1787, the Founders used a phrase found in the 1797 translation of Vattel, and a bad translation at that.

Had the Founders wanted to follow Vattel, they could have written:

No Person except a natural 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

No Person except a native 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

No Person except an indigenous 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

No Person unless born of citizens, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President

But they didn’t write any of those, and instead used a legal term well known to the lawyers of the day - natural born citizen. It was only ignorance of what Vattel actually wrote that led birthers to worship Vattel.


16 posted on 02/27/2011 7:55:02 PM PST by Mr Rogers (Poor history is better than good fiction, and anything with lots of horses is better still)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q

They simply cannot do this.

It’s very much like Obama declaring the DOM act unconstitutional. He doesn’t have the authority to make that determination!!!

Nor does Arizona have the authority to re-define “Natural Born citizen!.... thereby bypassing or “satisfying” the constitution by way of semantics.


17 posted on 02/27/2011 7:59:07 PM PST by Safrguns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob

“Since the child is already considered natural born if one parent is a US citizen this doesn’t change anything as far as I can see.”


However his (alleged) father was a foreign national.

Therefore he — through NATURAL law — inherited dual citizenship, at his birth!

It is my understanding that positive law cannot trump natural law.

STE=Q


18 posted on 02/27/2011 8:03:56 PM PST by STE=Q ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government" ... Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers; DoctorBulldog

“It was only ignorance of what Vattel actually wrote that led birthers to worship Vattel.”


Actually we have a freeper who can read Vattel’s original works in French; and who may be able to clear up your misunderstanding of what Vattel may have meant.

I don’t think birthers to worship Vattel anymore than Ben Franklin did, as follows:

Ben Franklin:

“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 public library here, and sending the other to the college of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) has been CONTINUALLY in the HAND 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” {Vattel}...

(Emphases mine)

We the underwritten, appointed by the american congress a committee of foreign correspondence having perused the above Letter, Written at our Request, do approve and confirm the same.

(Signed) John Dickinson

John Jay

STE=Q


19 posted on 02/27/2011 8:28:35 PM PST by STE=Q ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government" ... Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q

I think this is a great idea. The state can’t make a law changing the definition of natural born citizen under the Supreme law of the land. This gives anyone standing to challenge this all the way to the supreme court.


20 posted on 02/27/2011 8:42:52 PM PST by Electric Graffiti (Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of their Moonbats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q

Governor will never sign that into law.


21 posted on 02/27/2011 8:45:01 PM PST by Pit1 (Remember Ft Hood, even though obeeeee thinks it never happened. God bless our brave warriors.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q

Governor will never sign that into law.


22 posted on 02/27/2011 8:51:54 PM PST by Pit1 (Remember Ft Hood, even though obeeeee thinks it never happened. God bless our brave warriors.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Safrguns
Safrguns said:

Nor does Arizona have the authority to re-define “Natural Born citizen!.... thereby bypassing or “satisfying” the constitution by way of semantics.

Thank you for raising this issue. According to the Constitution, there is nothing to "re-define" as there is no definition of "Natural Born Citizen" therein.

As such, Arizona and every other state can definite it how it sees fit. The 10th Amendment allows them to do so. This law, should it pass, opens the doors to the Supreme Court to finally interpret the law. It is my firm belief the Obama supporters feel they will lose the case, and this is due to the fact de Vattel was so influential to the framing fathers. De Vattel was and still is the only one who defined Natives, indigenes, and Natural Born Citizens in the Law of Nations. This includes all 27 influential authoritarians of the law of nations at the time. No other author or lord ever defined it so succinctly. One could certainly try, but they would fail. We know the absolute power of the law of nations as it is clearly referenced within Article I along with the power Congress has to enforce it. Since de Vattel is considered part of this International Law, one must accept its authority.

The Supreme Court will make the correct interpretation.
23 posted on 02/27/2011 8:57:38 PM PST by devattel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE; stockpirate; real_patriotic_american; Eye of Unk; conservativegramma; MHGinTN; ...

Ping to a few!

STE=Q


24 posted on 02/27/2011 9:04:08 PM PST by STE=Q ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government" ... Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

You can be sure if it’s AZ, they are up to no good!


25 posted on 02/27/2011 9:05:46 PM PST by Theodore R. (John Boehner just surrendered the only weapon with which he had to fight. Shame on OH and the USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q
What law?

I would just like to see the 57 states pass one very simple law before the upcoming 2012 presidential campaign:

"When a person applies to put his name on a political party's primary ballot for President of the United states, he must attach a copy of his long form birth certificate if he was born in a hospital in the United States.

"If he was not born in a hospital in the United States, he must attach a document from the state of his birth---one with the state's seal---that verifies that he was born in that state on a certain date."

Tell me, is that too much to ask?

Yes, a very simple and standard law that could easily be applied in all 57 states, in my opinion.

NOTE: But wait. Someone will inevitably ask me this question: What happens if a potential candidate says that there is no long form birth certificate in his case, because he was not born in a hospital?

My response is this: Again, if the presidential candidate claims that he was NOT born in a hospital----maybe he was born in a taxicab or a private car or a private home or in the woods somewhere---then he can ask his state of birth to provide him with an OFFICIAL letter---with the state's seal---verifying that the candidate was born in that state on a certain state.

Now, is it too much to ask state officials to pass a simple law like the one above? I don't think so.

26 posted on 02/27/2011 9:41:36 PM PST by john mirse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: devattel

>>> As such, Arizona and every other state can definite it how it sees fit. The 10th Amendment allows them to do so.

Like some of them have redefined marriage???

See what a tangled web we weave....

Don’t like the law??? No problem... just pass what you want according to your own definition, and see if taxpayers are willing to pay the costs of testing your definition in court!... then see how much damage you can do until you get your hands slapped.

I agree with your analysis of the situation.
I DO NOT agree that states have a right to redefine language...
And I certainly DON’T agree with OUR tolerance of the legislators undermining the constitution this way.


27 posted on 02/27/2011 11:02:35 PM PST by Safrguns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q

I guess I’m not a natural born American since both my parents were aliens when I was born. So even though they were legal aliens, I too am ineligible to run for POTUS, even though I was born in this country.


28 posted on 02/27/2011 11:18:31 PM PST by AlaskaErik (I served and protected my country for 31 years. Progressives spent that time trying to destroy it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q

Bump


29 posted on 02/28/2011 4:38:09 AM PST by tutstar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie
Sounds like McCain inside job

More and more proof every day that McRat pimped for Hussein's campaign.

30 posted on 02/28/2011 5:53:35 AM PST by bgill (Kenyan Parliament - how could a man born in Kenya who is not even a native American become the POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: devattel

>The Supreme Court will make the correct interpretation.

I do not agree with that sentiment. For one thing the Supreme Court has gutted the prohibition against Ex Post Facto laws by declaring {in 1798*!!) by deeming that it *only* holds against CRIMINAL LAW. It is for this reason that Congress can deem “tax laws” to be ‘merely regulatory’ in nature and therefore apply retroactive changes thereunto; yet, at the same time violations of the tax-laws are pursued in CRIMINAL COURT.

Now either tax-law violations are either criminal or civil: if they are civil then why are they tried in criminal courts; and if criminal, why is congress allowed to make ex post facto tax-law?

Even by the USSC’s own ruling the USSC is inconsistent.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calder_v._Bull


31 posted on 02/28/2011 9:08:01 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk
"And now a personal question: Barry what's with the skull scars."

Yeah, THAT is REALLY curious - I just saw that over the weekend. Sure makes one wonder, huh?

32 posted on 02/28/2011 12:48:59 PM PST by jackibutterfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: AlaskaErik
I guess I’m not a natural born American since both my parents were aliens when I was born.

So even though they were legal aliens, I too am ineligible to run for POTUS, even though I was born in this country.

*******

How about some details about your parents?

For instance, how long were they legal aliens? If it were up to me, I would vote to let you run for president if your legal alien parents had been legal aliens for at least a year.

Long form birth certificate: Would you have any objection to showing the public a copy of your long form birth certificate---especially, if you were born in a hospital or a clinic--- with the state's seal that OFFICIALLY verified that you were born in the United States as you claimed?

33 posted on 02/28/2011 5:23:53 PM PST by john mirse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
We must all recognize that prior decisions of past Supreme Court justices does not automatically mean that current Supreme Court justices will make the same decisions.

Furthermore, what the Supreme Court decides does not mean that all hope is lost should the decision be incorrect. The United States has been very sluggish with regards to Constitutional amendments and the calling of conventions. States do have this power, something we citizens tend to forget about.
34 posted on 02/28/2011 7:37:20 PM PST by devattel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: jackibutterfly; Kenny Bunk

there is new discussion on the scars?? can you point me?? I like the whole scenario of Manchurian Frankenstein-ing...I think they gave him marsupial toes, too.


35 posted on 02/28/2011 9:19:39 PM PST by bitt ( ..Congress - either investigate Obama ...or yourselves, for complicity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: bitt
https://wtpotus.wordpress.com/tag/obamas-scars/

beforeitsnews.com/.../Obama_Why_Varying_Scar-Places_Head-Scars_Not_The_Same_Depending_on_which_pictures_you_look_at..html - Cached

wtpotus.wordpress.com/.../obamas-movable-features-his-newest-scar-open-thread/ - Cached

My HTML has not caught up to linking on this MAC thing. Forgive?

At any rate, the latest on the scars is that they seem to be in different places in different photographs. Perhaps Soros has had a number of Obie-puppets built and rotates them as needed, or he's using doubles, which I very well consider, were I he. Or, they might be the modern equivalent of those old "canals on Mars" things. It ain't like you can ask him!

The scar thing is very easily cleared up, though. I think I'll just take a look at his medical rec.......................Hmm? Oh, I know, I must have put them in with the birth certificates, or the passport file ... in a big box in Aunt Zeituni's house? You'll have to wait until we clean out the attic, bitt. Sorry. In the meantime Google "Obama's Scars" and you can have hours of unemployed fun at the library until the Depression II is over and the Chinese can use us as cheap labor* to drill for our own oil. That will be about 2020, as it will take our POTUS (or appropriate Soros-provided double, or device) at least 4 terms to figure out his job as caudillo of the hemisphere's northernmost Latin-American nation.

*If you speak Spanish AND Chinese.

36 posted on 03/01/2011 7:08:49 AM PST by Kenny Bunk (Odd, but I never had to ask, "Who, or what exactly is Dwight Eisenhower?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers; STE=Q

Mr Rogers said: “Ah, yes....in 1787, the Founders used a phrase found in the 1797 translation of Vattel, and a bad translation at that.”

What a silly thing to say. The Founders read French. All the historic correspondences show that the Founders had the French version of Vattel, NOT the English version (until later).

The Founders’ primary language was English—well, most of them—as is probably yours and mine.

Like most of the Founders, I can read and speak French quite fluently as a second language. So, I have a pretty good perspective on what English words the Founding Fathers were seeing in their mind’s eye while reading Vattel’s work in French.

You see, when you learn a second language, you automatically gravitate towards using common words with common meanings in both languages, such as the common word “brunette.”

English and French speakers each recognize the word “brunette” to mean someone with brown hair. Right? You with me so far?

Okay, now in French, “brunette” has a subtle usage rule as it is used only when talking about women, not men. But, to an English speaking person whose secondary language is French, it’s just a person with brown hair and will always be just that unless someone enlightens the reader as to the subtleties contained therein.

Still with me? Okay. A person whose primary language is English will ALWAYS tend to gravitate towards common words in both the primary and secondary languages whose meanings are close in nature.

This also applies to words which are similar in spelling or sound whose meanings are similar.

For instance, if you came across the phrase, “les membres de la société civil,” even without knowing much French, you should have no problem in breaking it down and figuring it out based upon similar English words.

You’ll probably deduce that “les membres” means “the members”; “de la” might give you pause, but since French phrases are so prevalent in English, it is inevitably deduced as meaning “of the”; and, “société civil” is easily decoded into English as meaning “society civil,” or—so that it sounds better to the English ear—”civil society.”

Gee, look at that! You’re translating French already!

Now that you are following me, let us take a look at the offending text in which so much ado has been made of:

“Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de parents citoyens”

An English speaking person whose secondary language is French will naturally gravitate towards breaking it down and translating it this way:

“Les Naturels” = “The Naturals”

“ou indigènes” = “or indigenous”

“font ceux que font” = “are those that are”

“nés dans” = “born in”

“le pays” = “the country”

“de parents citoyens” = “of parents citizens”

So, now it gets strung together in your mind’s eye and Voila!:

“The Naturals, or indigenous, are those who are born in the country of [their] parents [who are] citizens.”

Nope. No 1797 translation is required to understand where the Founding Fathers came up with the idea that Vattel was talking about “Natural Born.”

P.S. STE=Q - Thanks for thinking of me!

Cheers


37 posted on 03/01/2011 9:54:08 AM PST by DoctorBulldog (Here, intolerance... will not be tolerated! - (South Park))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: AlaskaErik

Nope. You are NOT a Natural Born citizen. But, as far as I know, the only thing prohibited to you is the Presidency (and, via extension, the Vice-Presidency). Since it is highly doubtful you will ever run for President, I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it if I were you.

:)

Cheers


38 posted on 03/01/2011 9:59:30 AM PST by DoctorBulldog (Here, intolerance... will not be tolerated! - (South Park))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: john mirse

My parents also were not citizens when I and my brother were born in the USA. We both served in WWII. I cannot speak for my brother as he was killed in WWII, but speaking for myself I can accept my ineligibility for POTUSA because of parents. No loss of love for them or for this Nation, as the opportunities from both overwhelm my childhood thoughts of being POTUSA .


39 posted on 03/01/2011 10:35:59 AM PST by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: john mirse

My parents also were not citizens when I and my brother were born in the USA. We both served in WWII. I cannot speak for my brother as he was killed in WWII, but speaking for myself I can accept my ineligibility for POTUSA because of parents. No loss of love for them or for this Nation, as the opportunities from both overwhelm my childhood thoughts of being POTUSA .


40 posted on 03/01/2011 10:36:21 AM PST by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: DoctorBulldog; STE=Q

““The Naturals, or indigenous, are those who are born in the country of [their] parents [who are] citizens.””

Except the Founders did NOT write that the President must be a natural citizen, a native citizen, or an indigenous citizen. They used “natural born citizen”, which had an established legal meaning and was NOT found in Vattel.

Vattel did NOT use ‘natural born citizen’, nor would it be a good translation - as you have agreed.


41 posted on 03/01/2011 10:52:32 AM PST by Mr Rogers (Poor history is better than good fiction, and anything with lots of horses is better still)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers; STE=Q

Mr. Rogers wrote: “Vattel did NOT use ‘natural born citizen’, nor would it be a good translation - as you have agreed.”

Well, we can play all day long; Since Vattel was Swiss, his primary language was probably German, with French as a secondary. I say that because I’ve noticed a lot of German sentence structure in his writings. So, who is to say that he didn’t mean “Natural Born” in that context? Only Vattel knows for sure. But, this is all just a bunch of minutia and of little consequence—as I will explain a little later.

What I find more important is that Blackstone did not use the phrase “natural born citizen” on which you assume the “established” legal meaning was based and carried forward into the U.S. Constitution (which has rejected many “established” legal meanings in favor of truly American ones). No, what is really telling is that Blackstone used the phrase “natural born SUBJECTS.”

Note how Vattel consistently calls denizens of a country “citizens,” and not “subjects.” That is very telling as to whose train of thought the Founding Fathers were latching onto concerning citizenship.

Furthermore, if we stick with Blackstone’s “established” rule of law, not all “natural born subjects” can become the king. Yet, all “natural born citizens” who fulfill the requirements of Article II can become the President. There’s a big difference in the thought process, there.

All in all, the actual origins of the phrase “Natural Born Citizen” and it’s implied meaning as used in the U.S. Constitution is a tricky slope to navigate with absolute certainty.

Ergo, to say that the Founding Fathers were solely relying upon Blackstone’s “established” definition of “natural born subject” as the entire foundation for Article II’s Natural Born Clause is to ignore evidence to the contrary.

Personally, I think it was a bit of both Blackstone and Vattel who have influenced the Founding Fathers’ interpretation of “Natural Born.” Remember, “Founding Fathers” is plural, not singular; Not every Founding Father had the same, exact mental conception of “Natural Born.”

So, one needs to determine the INTENT of the Natural Born clause in order to accurately determine if one is in violation of said clause.

Because, as I implied earlier, all of this jibber-jabber over whose definition of “Natural Born Citizen” was used is just a bunch of minutia and is used by Obama and his “psychophants” to hide the fact that Obama is absolutely, unequivocally in violation of the INTENT behind Article II, Section 1.

Since it can be shown (via quotes and writing) that the Founding Fathers’ INTENT behind the Natural Born clause was to help insure against divided loyalties, this is what one must use when determining the true meaning behind “Natural Born.”

In my own opinion, because Obama holds dual loyalties and has openly demonstrated that he is not solely loyal to America and Her People, he is NOT Natural Born.

Let me explain. Obama was born with dual citizenship—British-Kenyan and American. On the surface, this would have presented little problem to the INTENT behind the Natural Born Clause.

However, his little jaunt to Kenya in 2006 in which he meddled in the affairs of the Kenyan government and the Kenyan elections by stumping for and drumming up support for a fascist, commie like Odinga (who was opposing the established government at that time) shows his loyalties are divided.

http://obamaimpeachment.wordpress.com/2008/08/11/obama-kenya-raila-odinga-obama-nation-obama-2006-kenya-trip-islam-muslims-change-libya-qaddafi-leftists-marxists-radical-muslims-jerome-corsi-obamanation/

In my mind, at that moment, he gave up any claim he might of had to Natural Born Citizenship as it was INTENDED by the Founding Fathers.

Yup, the INTENT of the law is the key behind understanding the law and keeps one from losing sight of the big picture while quibbling over minutia such as whose definition of a nebulous term was used to write a law.

Cheers


42 posted on 03/01/2011 1:28:11 PM PST by DoctorBulldog (Here, intolerance... will not be tolerated! - (South Park))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: DoctorBulldog; Mr Rogers; STE=Q

Erratum:

In all fairness, I just remembered that Vattel used the phrase “les sujets naturels” which translates out to “the subjects natural” in another section of his book. So, it’s not quite accurate of me to have said that Vattel “consistently” calls the denizens of a country “citizens.” More like; Vattel overwhelmingly calls the denizens of a country “citizens.”

Furthermore, I seem to recall someone on another thread pointing out that J. Patsall was responsible for coining the term “Natural Born Citizen” back in the mid 1770’s. I’d Google it for ya’, but “ça ne fait rien.”

Cheers


43 posted on 03/01/2011 2:31:37 PM PST by DoctorBulldog (Here, intolerance... will not be tolerated! - (South Park))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: DoctorBulldog; Mr Rogers

DoctorBulldog:

“I seem to recall someone on another thread pointing out that J. Patsall was responsible for coining the term “Natural Born Citizen” back in the mid 1770’s”


Obama Presidential Eligibility - An Introductory Primer

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2275574/posts#ref01

Scroll to question # 4:

How is “natural born citizen” defined?

Patsall is well referenced.

PS; DoctorBulldog, as always your comments are most enlightening.

Thank you for posting.

STE=Q


44 posted on 03/01/2011 9:32:26 PM PST by STE=Q ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government" ... Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk

I love to get you on a tear....


45 posted on 03/01/2011 10:16:34 PM PST by bitt ( ..Congress - either investigate Obama ...or yourselves, for complicity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: DoctorBulldog
.., little jaunt to Kenya in 2006 in which he meddled in the affairs of the Kenyan government and the Kenyan elections by stumping for and drumming up support for a fascist, commie like Odinga (who was opposing the established government at that time) shows his loyalties are divided...

Bulldog, what trip to Kenya? The one after which 2500-3000 Christians were massacred, some burned alive in their churches by Odinga-Obama thugs .... that series of Obama/Odinga stump speeches after which 200,000 largely Christian Kikuyus were displaced from their home villages and after which famine hit Kenya ... that trip? .... that trip after which Obama/Soetoro lobbied the UN and the State Department to broker a deal with Odinga that made him Prime Minister after he lost the Presidential election, or threaten to plunge Kenya into civil war? ...the trip where Dick Morris, fees paid by Soros and the Clinton Foundation, was the brains behind Odinga's loss in an internationally monitored election? That trip?

Bulldog, that trip never happened. If it had happened, it would certainly have been page 1 above the fold in the NYT. Obama/Soetoro would have been charged under the Hatch Act and would have been forced to return the millions he raised for Odinga. Every time Dick Morris talked to Helmet-Head Hannity, conservatives would riot in the streets.

Surely Bulldog, you are wrong. You are influenced by those faked BBC newsreels. What decent American would vote for a guy who went on a trip like that to support a no-good commie jihadist murdering SOB like Odinga? Next, you'll tell me ole whatisname then invited him to the Inauguration? Nah. Impossible.

46 posted on 03/02/2011 8:20:48 AM PST by Kenny Bunk (Odd, but I never had to ask, "Who, or what exactly is Dwight Eisenhower?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q

Ms Rogers = “Fifth Columnar”!!!


47 posted on 03/03/2011 7:00:35 AM PST by danamco (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DoctorBulldog

Don’t underestimate ms. rogers, who has been all over the world and definitely “commands” fluently in the French language, aka a FINO here!!!


48 posted on 03/03/2011 7:06:38 AM PST by danamco (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

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