4 Supreme Court Cases define "natural born citizen"

The Post Mail ^ | 10/18/2009 | John Charlton

[BP2]

Are you saying you’re definitively positive that none
of them had the 1760 English translation? As we now
know, it was floating around in Massachusetts before
the Declaration of Independence.

[null and void]

I have heard that 'All' does not cause anyone to be pinged.

Yeah. It's just a dummy name to show that the reply isn't necessarily directed an a single individual, but is of interest to anyone on the thread.

It, "y'all" and "no one in particular" didn't work as perfectly as I'd intended.

OTOH, I suppose that if one could page all of FReeperdom that easily it would quickly get very annoying.

(The Mod Squad stopped me before I could create "The author of the article". I was on a roll that day)...

[null and void]

Didn’t include you in the To: list on #302. Sorry, my error.

[BuckeyeTexan]

No biggie. Thanks for answering him/her. “The author of the article” - I like that one. Too bad you didn’t get it. I think it was a great idea to create those.

[jamese777]

And we have. It says nothing about “Natural Born Citizen”, only “citizen at birth”. They are not the same thing. In fact all citizens at birth under the statute alone, are really naturalized at birth. Naturalization is the only citizenship power the Congress has. So say the Supreme Court.

---

The current US Supreme Court has been uninterested in your interpretation.

[jamese777]

This whole Hawaiian scene is beyond weird.
The Hawaiian Uniform Information Practices Act - UIPA is a sweeping state-level FOIA-type law. The DOH is absolutely required to release any documentation that caused them to state that Obama was (a) born in Hawaii, and (b) (as if it were their call) also state that he was a “Natural Born Citizen!”

The Hawaiian state office that monitors implementation of the act has indicated that they must release the documentation. Now it turns out there isn’t any? WTH? Over.

The position that they have taken in regard to BHO, Jr.’s privacy is also patently untenable. Once he posted that COLB (or whatever the hell it is) on the internet, all “privacy bets are off.” At any rate, the COLB is an abstract. A short-cut, not the whole story.

BTW, FReepers led the charge on the ground there. Amazing that the “Birther” lawyers didn’t figure it out!

---

Anyone can give up their own confidentiality rights for any reason. That has ZERO bearing on another person or a governmental agency legally breaching confidentiality. Obama can give the Department of Health permission to release his short form COLB if he chooses to. That would not give them legal right to release his long form Certificate of Live Birth, which Hawaii doesn’t release any more anyway.
Futhermore there is no additional information on the 1961 Hawaii long form Certificate of Live Birth that is required by the US Constitution, Article 2, Section 1 to establish natural born citizen status.
The Constitution does not require name of hospital, baby’s weight, or attending physician’s name.
The way to get legal release of Obama’s vital records is by any judge in the US issuing a subpoena for those records. That is allowable under Hawaii law, but thus far, no judge and no prosecuting attorney has sought a subpoena.
Please read the Hawaii Department of Health’s response to FOIA inquiries here:
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html

[jamese777]

Evidently you have never been divorced. Paternity is established in divorce cases for the purposes of Child support. Proof of responsibility comes from birth certificates, which was page 11 in the divorce decree, which lists the father and mother.
In adoption cases, birth fathers are named as they have to relinquish custody for an adoption to take place. Also they may contest an adoption, and the courts have a responsibility to notify the father. If they do not have an address, they have to “notify by publication”, in the last known town the father was known to live, to satisfy law, if a father comes back to court in protest.

---

Thanks for the information but I fail to see what it has to do with anything under discussion here about Obama’s eligibility.

[jamese777]

We are all seeking the answers to those questions.

---

“Seek and ye shall find.”

[jamese777]

Please share with us the original papers.

---

Its somewhat difficult to post original newspapers to a web site!
Please email the Honolulu Advertiser and the Star-Bulliten and ask them if they can send you copies.

[edge919]

The long-form birth certificate should resolve questions of whether Obama was or was not born in a hospital. If not, then he has some explaining to do as to where he was born and perhaps by whom.

[edge919]

Why? He served as president, it was public knowledge that his father was a British subject at his birth, and yet no one challanged his eligibility on that basis. That seems to be the perfect precedent for Obama's case.

It's my understanding that Arthur's father naturalized before Arthur reached majority. By the time most people would know of Arthur, they likely would have known his father to be an American citizen and probably had no reason to think otherwise and thus would not be likely to question his eligibility on the basis of his father's citizenship. Being born in Canada, however, would be a different story. Obama's papa, in contrast, never became an American citizen.

[edge919]

If one disagrees with birthers, one is labeled a troll on birther threads.

So it's okay if you label, but not vice versa??

[etraveler13]

I read “somewhere” in the past week that FRanklin used Vattel in the French language as they all, or the majority of them were fluent in the french language, and spoke, wrote, and read it smoothly.

[bgill]

Please email the Honolulu Advertiser and the Star-Bulliten and ask them if they can send you copies.

Riiight.

[El Gato]

The current US Supreme Court has been uninterested in your interpretation.

Or in any other. Not granting cert means exactly .. nothing.

[etraveler13]

You made the statement which drove the answer in post 156.
So the question to you, is why would you ask it, if it had nothing to do with the discussion on this thread?
Or, why do you ask questions and supply links for which you have no interest in the answer?

[El Gato]

Are you saying you’re definitively positive that none of them had the 1760 English translation? As we now know, it was floating around in Massachusetts before the Declaration of Independence.

And even if they did not. Many to most could read it in French. And make a better translation than the first one done in Britain.

[etraveler13]

Vattel’s Influence on the term Natural Born Citizen

---

For further proof on the question of Vattel’s influence we only need to look at Benjamin Franklin. In 1775, he observed, the importance of the Law of Nations, on the Founding Fathers and he then ordered 3 copies of the latest editions. The Library Company of Philadelphia which holds one of the three copies, lists the 1775 reference to this book, as “Le droit des gens,” from the publishing house of Chez E. van Harrevelt in Amsterdam, Holland, with a personal note to Franklin from the editor of this edition, C.G.F. Dumas. The fact that this particular volume that Franklin ordered is in French is significant, for at that time French was considered by the “family of nations” to be the diplomatic language, and the 1775 edition was considered the most exact reference of Vattel’s Law of Nations.

---

Our founding Fathers were men of high intellectual abilities, many were conversant in French, the diplomatic language of that time period. Benjamin Franklin had ordered 3 copies of the French Edition of “Le droit des gens,” which the deferred to as the authoritative version as to what Vattel wrote and what Vattel meant and intended to elucidate.”.

---

There is no doubt that the Founding Fathers did not exclusively use the English translation, but relied upon the French original. On December 9th of 1775, Franklin wrote to Vattel’s editor, C.G.F. Dumas, “ 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. has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting. Accordingly, that copy which I kept has been continually in the hands 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.”

---

[curiosity]

It's my understanding that Arthur's father naturalized before Arthur reached majority.By the time most people would know of Arthur, they likely would have known his father to be an American citizen and probably had no reason to think otherwise and thus would not be likely to question his eligibility on the basis of his father's citizenship.

Arthur was up front about the fact that his father was an immigrant, and it was well-known to his opponents. Furthermore, naturalizations are a matter of public record. Hence if anyone at the time had beleived that having a foreign father was disqaulifying, it would have been very easy for Arthur's opponents to check and find that his father was naturalized long after his brith.

Yet Arther's opponents didn't do that. The only thing they questioned was whether he was born in Canada. Not one brought up the citizenship of his father, even though that information was readily available.

Now why do you think that is? Do you think they were all idiots?

Or maybe, just maybe rhere's an obvious reason for it: until the birther movement started, no one believed that it was necessary for a US-born person to have citizen father in order to be eligible for the presidency.

Obama's papa, in contrast, never became an American citizen.

So?

[El Gato]

Thanks for the explantion. I’ll have to go think about it for awhile.