Posted on 05/02/2010 10:06:04 AM PDT by Menehune56
.
The term natural born citizen was first codified in writing in colonial reference books in 1758 in the legal reference book “Law of Nations.”
That legal reference book was used by John Jay, who later went on to become the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Jay had the clause inserted into the Constitution via a letter he wrote to George Washington, the leader of the Constitutional Convention. Jay was considered the outstanding legal scholar of his time and he was the one is responsible for inserting that term into the U. S. Constitution, which was derived from the Law of Nations.
John Jay wrote: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
Emmerich de Vattel was a Swiss jurist who attained world preeminence in international law. This was primarily the result of his great foundational work, which he published in 1758. His monumental work — The Law of Nations — applied a theory of natural law to international relations. His scholarly, foundational, and systematic explanation of the Law of Nations was especially influential in the United States.
The Law of Nations was so influential in the United States because his principles of liberty and equality coincided with the ideals expressed in the U. S. Declaration of Independence. In particular, his definitions in terms of Law governing nations regarding citizenship, defense of neutrality, and his rules for commerce between neutral and belligerent states were considered authoritative in the United States.
Many have said that de Vattel’s Law of Nations was THE primary reference and defining book used by the framers of the U. S. Constitution. It is really not possible to overstate the influence of de Vattel’s Law of Nations as the primary reference book in the drafting of the U. S. Constitution. Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations is almost beyond comparison in its value as a defining document regarding U. S. Constitution intent and interpretation. The Law of Nations, or the Principles of Natural Law, published in 1758, is the first, and ONLY, definitive work the Framers of the U. S. Constitution used for the inclusion of the “Natural Born Citizen” phrase. It nails what is meant by the “natural born citizen” phrase of Section 1, Article 2, of the U. S. Constitution.
It is amazing how perfectly, precisely, and explicitly what Emmerich de Vattel, wrote in paragraph 212, of book 1, chapter 19, of The Law of Nations entitled CITIZENS AND NATIONS, applies to the Obama FRAUD. Quite clearly and explicitly it defines why Obama, can NOT possibly be qualified to be the President of the United States. Obama MUST be disqualified from the office of President of the United States according to the U. S. Constitution Section 1 Article 2.
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as a matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. THE COUNTRY OF THE FATHERS IS THEREFORE THAT OF THE CHILDREN.”
.
Obotter? That's pretty strange.
The knee pad in caps thing is pathetically juvenile. It simply announces for all to see the type of person you are.
And Manning isn't standing up for anything meaningful except in the minds of people who have left reality in their rear view mirror.
“And you show your true color of continue attempts to keep your dear leader in office at any cost!!!”
Again—reading comprehension. My posts on this thread have been defending John McCain. What is he anyway these days, the undear non-leader?
“I asked you before if you ever have been in Panama, I have, could you answer that simple question with a yes or no without any distraction tap-dancing???”
Simple answer to a pointless question—I've been to Panama City (the one in Panama). So what? Actually setting foot in Panama has nothing to do with the ability to understand the legal issues surrounding McCain's eligibility. You know, the ones you avoid to make knee pad remarks with exclamation points because you're so clueless.
I don’t think this deal was made in a dark back room laden with heavy cigar smoke. McCain became the obvious nominee when he was endorsed by Charlie Crist. Until, Florida it was up for grabs. Palin give McCain a fighting chance to win and energized the conservative base as intended but it wasn’t enough. Palin was badly mishandled by McCain’s staff, but your right, she was not destroyed.
I had to check. lol Dole was the vice presential nominee in 1976. You had me going there for awhile.
from Wikipedia:
“Dole was the Republican vice presidential nominee in the 1976 U.S. Presidential election, but lost the election to Walter Mondale, who ran on the Jimmy Carter ticket”
No one is saying that all citizens are natural born citizens. Schwarzenegger, Granholm, and Kissinger are not eligible because they are not natural born. All three were born citizens of other countries (Austria, Canada, and Germany, respectively) and only later became American citizens through naturalization.
All who were born citizens, however, are natural born.
In Wong Kim Ark, the Court appealed to the tradition of English common law:
It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
Very like the 14th Amendment, isn't it? Wong's parents were illegals from China. One of Obama's parents was an American, and the other (assuming he wasn't Frank Marshall Davis) was a legally authorized visitor. But if Wong had had the political mojo to run for president, he would have been eligible.
I totally screwed that up. Dole was the 1996 nominee. When you are as old as I am the years fly by.
“Simple answer to a pointless question—I’ve been to Panama City (the one in Panama). So what? Actually setting foot in Panama has nothing to do with the ability to understand the legal issues surrounding McCain’s eligibility. You know, the ones you avoid to make knee pad remarks with exclamation points because you’re so clueless.”
No, but it has everything to do with simple Geography which is not a strong hold of most Americans!
Colon/Cristobal, a city in the Republic of Panama, about 8-10 miles from the Canal Zone, which I probably have visit a half of dozen times for taking on board provision and bonded stores,loading/unloading cargo before transiting through the Panama Canal!!
In this city we did not see any Americans roaming around there. It was ALL Hispanics, and the City, IF and I emphasize that IF that was where McPain was born, then he is definitely NOT born on U.S. soil, but in a foreign country, and at that time probably also a Panamanian citizen!!!
http://www.lonelyplanet.com/panama/colon-province/colon
Colón City
Colón, Panama. «koh LOHN» (2000 pop. 204,208), is the second largest city in Panama, at the Caribbean end of the Panama Canal. Colón was surrounded by, but not part of, the former Panama Canal Zone. Colón is an important port, commercial center, and tourist destination. It was made a free trade zone in 1953 and is the world’s second largest duty-free port.
The city was founded in 1850 by Americans working on the Panama railroad and was named Aspinwall after one of the builders of the railway until 1890. Colón is the Spanish form of Columbus; the name of the neighboring port of Cristsbal is Spanish for Christopher. After completion of the railway in 1855, Colón overshadowed the older Caribbean ports of Panama, and with the first plans for the isthmian canal it took on additional prestige. Built on a swampy island, the city was notoriously unhealthful and often scourged by yellow fever until Colonel William C. Gorgas, in charge of sanitation during the canal construction, gave it a new system of waterworks and sewerage and drained the surrounding swamps.
Three modern ports make Colón one of the most important ports of the Caribbean Sea.
obumpa
US v] Wong Kim Ark has zero relevance to this issue.
They were addressing an individual that had been lawfully born in the us to non-citizen parents, not anything in that case is in any way parallel to the Pretender’s case. They were not addressing Article II, Section 1 issues.
He was born outside the US, in the homeland of his father, and never acquired US citizenship. But the relevance of that is beyond what is needed to disqualify him. There is no scenario under which he could qualify as a natural born citizen.
Thje issues and cases are discussed in detail here:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-
I think I’ll go with the actual published decisions of judges and justices who have reviewed legal briefs in these Obama eligibility cases rather than internet discussions of the issues involved.
The Indiana Court of Appeals used “Wong Kim Ark” as a precedent for their dismissal of “Ankeny et. al v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels”. The Indiana Supreme Court refused to review the lower court’s decision and there has been no appeal to the US Supreme Court as of this date.
It was the REPUBLICAN Attorney General of Indiana
Gregory F. Zoeller who introduced “Wong Kim Ark” as a precedent for the defense in legal briefs submitted to the Court.
Here are a few relevant quotes from the “Wong Kim Ark” decision: [An alien parent’s] allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’
The Wong court also said: “Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, ’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.’ and “…every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”
“The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”
The Supreme Court of the United States, 1898.
A ‘subject’ is not a citizen, nor is a citizen a subject.
Its not just “apples and oranges,” its deception and irrelevance. A subject is the property of the state, while in the US, the state is the creation of the citizens, who have the power to revoke it at any time.
"Law of Nations" is not a "legal reference book," and it did not codify the term "natural born citizen" in 1758. That should be obvious, since it was written in French.
A couple of hypothetical questions occur...
There is no definitive information in the public domain as to who BO jr's actual father is. What if BO jr misrepresented who his father was? What if BO Sr is not BO jr's father, but someone else (an American citizen) is? What if BO jr has a motive to misrepresent his father as BO sr when he has private knowledge that his father is someone else who is/was an American citizen? What if the information about BO jr's actual American citizen father was discovered or made known to JRC and JMcC, and that JRC and JMcC for whatever reason chose not go public with the information, and also not challenge BO jr's candidacy because of this knowledge?
I wonder if it would be too early to conclude that there is a conspiracy between any combination of JMcC, HRC, and BOjr...
If you zoom out of this map you will clearly see the distance from the Canal Zone to the City of Colon!!!
http://www.lonelyplanet.com/panama/colon-province/colon
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9934044/John-McCain-Birth-Certificate
Perhaps you have failed to understand that French was one of the dominant languages of the colonies?
Yes it was a legal reference, and certainly there was no legal scholar of that era that wouldn’t be fluent in French, English, and Deutch.
So hard to grasp, isn’t it!
The US Supreme court used the language in Vattel in its two decisions that addressed the issue specifically, and in two others that touched on it tangentally.
.
Moot point, since he wasn't born there. And no, the pdf of a birth certificate proporting to show he was born there isn't real. It was a fake submitted into evidence by a guy suing get McCain disqualified from the ballot. The case was dismissed.
Amazing how so many bithers have fallen for such an easy to spot fake.
FYI, McCain was born on the Coco Solo naval base, which was definitely NOT on Panamanian soil.
>> There is NO QUESTION that John McCain meets the Constitutional requirements.
Furthermore, it’s irrelevant.
The term natural born citizen was first codified in writing in colonial reference books in 1758 in the legal reference book “Law of Nations.”
That legal reference book was used by John Jay, who later went on to become the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Jay had the clause inserted into the Constitution via a letter he wrote to George Washington, the leader of the Constitutional Convention. Jay was considered the outstanding legal scholar of his time and he was the one is responsible for inserting that term into the U. S. Constitution, which was derived from the Law of Nations.
John Jay wrote: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
Emmerich de Vattel was a Swiss jurist who attained world preeminence in international law. This was primarily the result of his great foundational work, which he published in 1758. His monumental work — The Law of Nations — applied a theory of natural law to international relations. His scholarly, foundational, and systematic explanation of the Law of Nations was especially influential in the United States.
The Law of Nations was so influential in the United States because his principles of liberty and equality coincided with the ideals expressed in the U. S. Declaration of Independence. In particular, his definitions in terms of Law governing nations regarding citizenship, defense of neutrality, and his rules for commerce between neutral and belligerent states were considered authoritative in the United States.
Many have said that de Vattel’s Law of Nations was THE primary reference and defining book used by the framers of the U. S. Constitution. It is really not possible to overstate the influence of de Vattel’s Law of Nations as the primary reference book in the drafting of the U. S. Constitution. Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations is almost beyond comparison in its value as a defining document regarding U. S. Constitution intent and interpretation. The Law of Nations, or the Principles of Natural Law, published in 1758, is the first, and ONLY, definitive work the Framers of the U. S. Constitution used for the inclusion of the “Natural Born Citizen” phrase. It nails what is meant by the “natural born citizen” phrase of Section 1, Article 2, of the U. S. Constitution.
It is amazing how perfectly, precisely, and explicitly what Emmerich de Vattel, wrote in paragraph 212, of book 1, chapter 19, of The Law of Nations entitled CITIZENS AND NATIONS, applies to the Obama FRAUD. Quite clearly and explicitly it defines why Obama, can NOT possibly be qualified to be the President of the United States. Obama MUST be disqualified from the office of President of the United States according to the U. S. Constitution Section 1 Article 2.
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as a matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. THE COUNTRY OF THE FATHERS IS THEREFORE THAT OF THE CHILDREN.”
In their decision dismissing the challenge to the awarding of Indiana’s electoral votes to McCain AND Obama, the Indiana Court of Appeals gave the plaintiff’s references to deVattel and the Law of Nations short shrift while relying on Wong Kim Ark and the 14th Amendment for their ruling that both John McCain and Barack Hussein Obama qualify as natural born citizens. I quote the Court:
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person ‘born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject’ at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those ‘born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.’”—Indiana Court of Appeals, “Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels,” Nov. 12, 2009
Nowhere in any clause of the United States Consitution, in no law passed by Congress and signed by a President and in no US Supreme Court decision has deVattel’s point of view been codifed as the law of the land in the United States of America.
Since 1868 and the ratification of the 14th Amendment, the law of the land and a myriad of US Supreme Court decisions have upheld the constitutionality of the position that there are only TWO forms of US Citizenship for ALL Americans including those who would be president: born citizens and naturalized citizens. Born citizens can be president (and one of them is the 44th President at this very moment) and naturalized citizens cannot be president even though Arnold Schwarzenegger would like to change that.
Relevant excerpts from other US Supreme Court decisions:
“Kwock Jan Fat v. White,” 253 U.S. 454 (1920)
“It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee and his wife, Tom Ying Shee, he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649. But, while it is conceded that he is certainly the same person who, upon full investigation, was found, in March, 1915, by the then Commissioner of Immigration, to be a natural born American citizen…”
“Schneider v. Rusk” (1964): Native born and natural born are synonomous.
“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘ natural born’ citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, s 1.”
One more time the Supreme Court equates “citizen at birth,” “native born” and “natural born:”
“Elk v Wilkins,” 112 U. S. 94 (1884)
“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘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;’ and ‘the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’Const. art. 2, § 1; art. 1, § 8.”
The US Supreme Court implies the equivalence of “native born” with “natural born” when it used the former as the qualification for president:
In “Luria v. United States,” 231 U. S. 9 (1913)”:
“Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.” 88 U. S. 165; “Elk v. Wilkins,” 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; 22 U. S. 827
And in “Minor v Happsersett” (1874) the Supreme Court said:
“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,’ and that Congress shall have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”
The Court went on to say what is often quoted by persons seeking to challenge Obama’s eligibility: “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.”
Thus far by my count there have been 62 lawsuits adjudicated in courts at every level of the judiciary and all across the nation. No plaintiff has prevailed in any of them.
His father's name is listed on the COLB. Short of a DNA test (which is now impossible, since he's dead), that's about as definitive as it gets.
Nope. They were both legal residents.
Keep on posting your irrelevant confusion.
Your agenda is clear to all.
.
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.