Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: newheart
It is decidedly not my intent to cast aspersions at birthers, but I have yet not found anything in the law that clearly defines natural born citizens.

Below is an explanation of how the definition can be found in the Constitution.

"Natural Born" is declared in Article II [No Person except a 'natural born' Citizen...]

.. and "Natural Born" is implied and expressed in the Constitution as a result of COMMON LAW.

The Common Law in this case goes all the way back to the Magna Carta (over 700 years). "Natural Born" was actually expressed (written) in Vatel's Law of Nations. If you don't know what the Law of Nations said about "natural born" you should. The Founding Fathers did. The Founding Fathers knew exactly what was implied, expressed and common to law when they drafted Article II, the "natural born" eligibility clause.

The Constitution and de Vattel’s Law of Nations has the answer to any questions regarding citizenship abroad and any laws crossing national boundaries:

EXCERPT 1. U.S. Constitution, Article II, §1: 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;

EXCERPT 2: de Vattel’s Law of Nations circa 1758 Book 1, Chapter XIX, § 212: The natives, or NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens…The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.

Finally, the main item in the Constitution that ties both together:

EXCERPT 3: U.S. Constitution, Article I, §8: The Congress shall have Power…To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the LAW OF NATIONS.

LAW OF NATIONS is CAPITALIZED, meaning our framers were citing a proper name. There was only one Law of Nations in 1787 officially declared. And yes, Congress has the power to create and enforce ANY LAW mentioned in the Law of Nations written by Emmerich de Vattel! It was sitting right under our noses the entire time.
203 posted on 01/06/2010 3:56:03 PM PST by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it! www.FairTaxNation.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies ]


To: Man50D

Very interesting food for thought. Thanks, Man50D.


205 posted on 01/06/2010 4:05:36 PM PST by newheart (A RINO is anyone who claims to be Republican but doesn't agree with ME on everything. </sarc>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies ]

To: Man50D
Finally, the main item in the Constitution that ties both together:

EXCERPT 3: U.S. Constitution, Article I, §8: The Congress shall have Power…To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the LAW OF NATIONS.

LAW OF NATIONS is CAPITALIZED, meaning our framers were citing a proper name. There was only one Law of Nations in 1787 officially declared. And yes, Congress has the power to create and enforce ANY LAW mentioned in the Law of Nations written by Emmerich de Vattel! It was sitting right under our noses the entire time.

First, your capitalization argument is priceless. You do notice that in the same sentence where "the Law of Nations" is capitalized, the words "Piracies and Felonies," "Seas," and "Offenses" are also capitalized? And that's just in that sentence; there are dozens of nouns in Section 8 that are capitalized. Are you proposing that they all are referring to proper names, or just the one?

Second, for the sake of argument, let's assume your interpretation of Vattel's statements on citizenship inheritance are correct. Moreover, let's assume for the sake of argument that since the adoption of the Constitution, that interpretation has been the correct one when it comes to Constitutional interpretation of "natural born citizen."

So, assuming both of those to be true, why did it take a year and a half of primary campaigning for ANYBODY to realize and argue that Obama was Constitutionally ineligible based on his father's citizenship? How did the entire country, all of conservative America, and the entirety of Obama's Democratic opposition simply slip up and fail to apply this standard, even though all the relevant facts were publicly known, and had been published in Obama's own memoir in 1995? If it was the standard test before summer 2008, why did no one use it or even mention it before summer 2008? Why did it suddenly appear only after Obama clinched the nomination and after Obama put his birth certificate online?

216 posted on 01/06/2010 4:35:11 PM PST by LorenC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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