Posted on 06/12/2010 6:55:06 PM PDT by bushpilot1
There is ample information in this book to show Obama is not qualified to be President based on the natural born citizenship clause in the Constitution.
The subject book is being blocked by Google no doubt on the behest of the White House.
Obama contends he was born in Hawaii...well.. we say "being born is a church does not make one a Christian".
The natural-born or native is one born in the country of citizen parents.
"The country of the child is that of the father."
"There is" says McLeod, "something in the idea of native country which is intimately connected with the doctrine of allegiance. It is not, however, the spot of earth, upon which the child is born that connects him with the national society, but the relation of the child's parents to that society.
"In the ordinary concerns of life, there is no need for such minute distinctions; and the majority of men are possessed of too little discrimination to understand it.
"Every statesmen are not always wise; and designing men find it for their interest to keep up a confusion(Obots) of ideas upon important subjects."
"In the present discussion, nevertheless, it is necessary that I distinctly state to you the true bond which connects the child with the body politic. It is not the inanimate matter of a piece of land, but the moral relations of his parentage."
"Let a child be born within the walls of a church, this does not make him a church member."
BINGO! That's been the issue all along too.
On the contrary, Google Books has the entire book online. Click here.
Go find that 1787 dictionary. You'll see that in some contexts, the two terms are synonyms. In fact we've been through that exercise, with the complication of translation from French. We used the "Royal Dictionary of French and English and English and French" 1729 edition, I think.
But the net result was that either of the two words used in Vattel, naturales or indigenes, could be translated as "native" or "natural born". And in fact that what the 1797 translation says:
"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."
When you say "A or B, are C. the only way that makes sense is if A & B are synonyms.
Interesting treatise isn't it. I have had this for quite some time and it just happened that I have been expanding my library on citizenship. Just got done reading an interesting case from the VA supreme court of 1805. The case was never overturned by the US Supreme Court and thus its holding stood as constitutional in that there was no such thing as perpetual allegiance or feudal birthright citizenship adopted by the federal government in the constitution. I'm now off to go fetch a copy of International Law by Karl von Savigny who was considered the ultimate authority and was the most quoted by the higher courts of the time. After Savigny, I plan to pull all I can from Dicey. Dicey is quite outspoken about Kent's tendencies to fall back to ECL which was NOT that of the law of the US and that even though Kent's works are important, they also must be scrutinized.
The Founders had more backbone than the majority of the current members of Congress. If there are riots so be it.
Google is not allowing a full view of this book. You are wrong.
Book overview
Snippet view - 1881 - 385 pages - Political Science
You posted a snippets view. Try the full view.
“But Congress accept him as bona fide.”
Bona fide what?
another interesting fact is that in the Federalist papers, the Natives who are not citizens are referred to as inhabitants. Vattel § 213. Inhabitants:
The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the society by their residence, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside in it; and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow the condition of their fathers; and, as the state has given to these the right of perpetual residence, their right passes to their posterity.
I’m familiar with the concept of “inhabitants,” and have written upon it before. Most would be very surprised to learn that people residing in territories were regarded as inhabitants, as were those born in Washington, DC.
I’m not sure I get your point. Are you claiming that someone with Obama’s parentage is not a citizen at all?
BushP1 maybe Google has ID you as a rabble-rouser by blocking you... not so much tinfoil off/
Exactly. And now with immigration reform and anchor baby all over the news, now is the prime time to run with this and educate the dumbed down public.
bttt
I suspect a fear of that is at the root of a lot of the derision this matter receives from certain pro-business individuals and groups normally much more amenable to the Constitutional case.
Naturels used by Vattel..and translated by the Framers to natural.
Thanks for that.
I've read enough to know that the Framers intent was to ensure that all US presidents owed pure, and unalloyed allegiance to this country, and no other.
It's clear to me that their understanding of Vattel's definition of Natural Born Citizen was, one who is born of the blood and of the soil.
It just isn't any more complicated than that.
Under the immigration laws of the 1800’s , the same as today. A child born to parents who have immigrated(implied allegiance) to the U.S. but not yet U.S. citizens is a Native born citizen. Ark’s parents had legally immigrated(implied allegiance) to the U.S. and under the law at that time was a native born citizen. In the opinion of the court Ark was declared a native born citizen equal to that of natural born citizens. The Supreme did state that there was a distinction between Natural and Native born. The court still upheld that belief that citizenship is directly related to allegiance. Children of illegals have no allegiance therefore no citizenship.
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.