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

Skip to comments.

Vattel and the Founders meaning of the term Naturels (Natural Born)
Journals of the Continental Congress 1781 ^ | 1781 | The Founders

Posted on 06/22/2010 3:40:28 PM PDT by bushpilot1

In the Journals of the Continental Congress there is a translation of the French word naturels to natural born. Meaning the Founders understood Vattel's naturels to mean natural born.

The document and its translation by the Founders must have been overlooked over the years by the courts, congress and the news media.

In French.

ARTICLE III Les consuls et vice consuls respectifs ne pourront être pris que parmi les sujets naturels de la puissance qui les nommera.

The Founders Translation.

The respective Consuls and Vice Consuls shall only be taken from among the natural born subjects of the power nominating them.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; certifigate; naturalborncitizen
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-278 next last
Vattels Law of Nations: Les citoyens sont les membres de la societe civile : lies a cette societe par certains devoirs et soumis a son autorite, ils participent avec egalite a ses avantages. Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens.

The English translation and how the Founders understood the paragraph to mean:

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

We know the Founders had copies of Vattel's Law of Nations.

Photobucket

jay hand letter

Photobucket

It matters not where Obama was born..he is not a natural born citizen.

1 posted on 06/22/2010 3:40:31 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

“It matters not where Obama was born..he is not a natural born citizen.”

This is something I have been saying all along! Just like the illegals who come here and have a kid - their children are NOT citizens, because their parents are NOT citizens!

DUH!!


2 posted on 06/22/2010 3:52:15 PM PDT by ExTxMarine (Hey Congress: Go Conservative or Go Home!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron; little jeremiah

ping


3 posted on 06/22/2010 4:05:54 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW; bushpilot1; little jeremiah
It matters not where Obama was born..he is not a natural born citizen.

Nothing matters anymore, the law, the Constitution, you, me, the individual, Citizen, America, we've been taken over in a silent, peaceful, politically correct coup.

The question is, what the hell do we do?

4 posted on 06/22/2010 4:25:28 PM PDT by Las Vegas Ron ("Because without America, there is no free world" - Canada Free Press - MSM, where are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

The works of Vattel are not the supreme law of the land. The Constitution is very specific what the supreme law of the land is:

The Constitution itself.
All law made under the Constitution.
Treaties confirmed by the Senate.

Under the laws of the the land, Obama is a citizen at birth, otherwise known as a natural born citizen. The argument you make from a French translation of a Latin language political philosophy exercise is worse than weak.

But I guess facts don’t matter to people who just want their point of view to be reality.


5 posted on 06/22/2010 4:27:18 PM PDT by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ExTxMarine
This is something I have been saying all along! Just like the illegals who come here and have a kid - their children are NOT citizens, because their parents are NOT citizens!

You are mistaken. The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution is very clear. If you are born in the United States, and you are subject to it's laws, you are a citizen by birth of the United States.

The exclusionary clause (and subject to the jurisdiction thereof) is for the cases of diplomats who are not under the U.S. jurisdiction.

If you don't like it, change the Constitution, but that is the law of the land.

6 posted on 06/22/2010 4:31:19 PM PDT by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius

“If you don’t like it, change the Constitution, but that is the law of the land.”

Please show me where it says that the exclusionary clause is for diplomats!

This is the “law of the land” because no one has directly challenged this view!

If the fourteenth amendment is very clear, then why did all American-born Indians have to get citizenship through a congressional law in 1924?!?!?!


7 posted on 06/22/2010 4:36:29 PM PDT by ExTxMarine (Hey Congress: Go Conservative or Go Home!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

There is no doubt about it except for the obtuse Obot-bats who say otherwise with their twisted logic.


8 posted on 06/22/2010 4:37:25 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron

“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will, therefore, be unnecessary to examine any other.”—James Madison, Founding Father, Framer of the Constitution, 4th President of the United States


“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by [the Supreme Court of the United States in their 1898 decision in the case of U.S. v.] 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

“The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,’ contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.”—US v Wong Kim Ark (1898)

“The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”—U.S. v Wong Kim Ark (1898)

“There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president–removal for any reason–is within the province of Congress, not the courts.”—US District Court Judge David O. Carter in dismissing “Captain Pamela Barnett, et. al. v Barack H. Obama, et. al., October 29, 2009

Judge David O. Carter was previously a Lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps. He earned the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart while serving in the Vietnam War.

Judge Carter went on to say: “Plaintiffs have encouraged the Court to ignore mandates of the Constitution; to disregard the limits put on its power put in place by the Constitution; and to effectively overthrow a sitting president who was popularly elected by “We the people”—over sixty nine million of the people.

Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction. Respecting the Constitutional role and jurisdiction of this court is not unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism.”


9 posted on 06/22/2010 4:41:28 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius

“Under the laws of the the land, Obama is a citizen at birth, otherwise known as a natural born citizen.”

So, according to you, any “citizen” is a “natural born citizen?” If this is the case, then why did the founding fathers bother to even put “natural born citizen” and not just put “citizen” in the constitution?

Just because you don’t like the obvious meaning of the words and refuse to listen to the words and explanations of those who drafted the laws on how and what the laws meant, does not make it so! The drafter of the the 14th Amendment stated that this amendment would exclude those who are not citizens, illegals and diplomats!

The application of the amendment in the manner which you and so many other dimwitted fools want it to be is the problem, NOT the wording!


10 posted on 06/22/2010 4:43:05 PM PDT by ExTxMarine (Hey Congress: Go Conservative or Go Home!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
( ! )
11 posted on 06/22/2010 4:45:56 PM PDT by Las Vegas Ron ("Because without America, there is no free world" - Canada Free Press - MSM, where are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ExTxMarine
How can this sentence be confusing to you?

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

Only diplomats are not under jurisdiction of the United States by treaty. Thus, if you are not under jurisdiction of the United States, you are covered by diplomatic immunity.

The Snyder Act closed the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" loophole concerning Indians born on reservations or other native ruled territories that were semi-autonomous.

12 posted on 06/22/2010 4:49:23 PM PDT by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron; bushpilot1; little jeremiah

I don’t know what the answer is. They are not listening to us. And they don’t intend to. I’m afraid that not enough Americans are awake to the danger either. They think “a couple more years and we simply vote him out”. I’m not so sure.


13 posted on 06/22/2010 4:49:23 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ExTxMarine
then why did the founding fathers bother to even put “natural born citizen” and not just put “citizen” in the constitution?

FRiend, doncha know, some here will tell you that osama him self could be the bamsters daddy.....and would still be Constitutionally legitimate.....dude, you really have to get with the program....

Thank you and bless you for your service, FRiend!!

14 posted on 06/22/2010 4:51:53 PM PDT by Las Vegas Ron ("Because without America, there is no free world" - Canada Free Press - MSM, where are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ExTxMarine

Citizen at birth = natural born citizen

Those who quote Vattel try to seperate the two phrases.


15 posted on 06/22/2010 4:52:20 PM PDT by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron; jamese777

They keep using tired old arguments. Too bad more of them don’t read history instead of leftist talking points.


16 posted on 06/22/2010 4:52:32 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius

“Let us appeal to enlightened and disinterested judges. No one is more so than Vattel.” Jefferson

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-foley?id=JefCycl.xml&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=9221&division=div2

“Vattel is one of the most zealous and constant advocates for the preservation of good faith in all our dealings”

Jefferson

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-foley?id=JefCycl.xml&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=9222&division=div2


17 posted on 06/22/2010 4:54:59 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ExTxMarine
So, according to you, any “citizen” is a “natural born citizen?” If this is the case, then why did the founding fathers bother to even put “natural born citizen” and not just put “citizen” in the constitution?

No, a naturalized citizen is not a natural born citizen. But, as the U.S. Supreme Court has held, the Constitution "contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization." So if Obama was not naturalized, he is a natural born citizen.

18 posted on 06/22/2010 4:55:35 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius; ExTxMarine

What you are saying is that Juan and Conchitas baby, born in Arizona as they crossed the border, is eligible to be President. Think about that.


19 posted on 06/22/2010 4:55:47 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

LOL....here, let me give this a shot......

CITIZENS, NOT NATURAL BORN CITIZENS

20 posted on 06/22/2010 4:56:26 PM PDT by Las Vegas Ron ("Because without America, there is no free world" - Canada Free Press - MSM, where are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

See post 19.


21 posted on 06/22/2010 4:58:07 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

Yes!

It doesn’t matter if I like it or not, or you like it or not, the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Code, the precendent set by the Ark case, all say

YES!!!

The law is crystal clear. And unlike the accusation put forward, this question has been raised before and in each case has been consistent.

If you are born in the United States, and you are subject to the laws of the United States, you ARE a natural born citizen.


22 posted on 06/22/2010 4:58:16 PM PDT by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius; Las Vegas Ron; patlin; El Gato
Photobucket Citizens and Natural Born are different meanings.
23 posted on 06/22/2010 5:00:42 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron

U.S. Code Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part 1, Section 1401:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;


24 posted on 06/22/2010 5:00:42 PM PDT by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

According to Vattel. But not according to the Constitution, the U.S. Code, and court precedent.

And the Constitution says what is the supreme law of the land?


25 posted on 06/22/2010 5:02:08 PM PDT by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
It doesn’t matter if I like it or not

You're right. What you think doesn't matter. What matters is what the old white guys said. And they had discussions, the text of which have been posted on FR. They worried about divided loyalty. So they put into the requirements a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN of TWO CITIZEN PARENTS. You should read some history.

the precendent set by the Ark case

Talking points again. That case had NOTHING to do with Presidential qualifications.

26 posted on 06/22/2010 5:03:33 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius

“The Snyder Act closed the ‘and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ loophole concerning Indians born on reservations or other native ruled territories that were semi-autonomous.”

So, to you, a portion of the 14th Amendment was a “loophole” where as I belief it was INTENTIONALLY written to exclude people who are not ONLY subject to the jurisdiction of the United States!

If you read the writings and arguments concerning this Amendment, during discussions it was brought up that illegals and Indians would NOT be given citizenship with this amendment!

You see, you and so many other nitwit liberals decided to close a “loophole” which was specifically written to exclude people who do not have complete allegiance and are solely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.


27 posted on 06/22/2010 5:04:59 PM PDT by ExTxMarine (Hey Congress: Go Conservative or Go Home!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
Under the laws of the the land, Obama is a citizen at birth, otherwise known as a natural born citizen.


Wrong. The 14th Amendment was naturalization at birth. I'll even cite the case where they have an erroneous holding Ankeny v. Indiana BUT where the Indiana Appeals Court admitted that the 14th Amendment was about naturalization, which did and does NOT make people or former slaves natural born citizens.

From the infamous Note 14 of Ankeny, Kruse v. Indiana:


-snip-

For all but forty-four people in our nation‟s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant.

-end snip-

I could cite you where the Supreme Court also says who are 14th Amendment citizens at birth - and are not natural born citizens. Obama is not a natural born citizen any way you look at it.

28 posted on 06/22/2010 5:05:27 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
If you are born in the United States, and you are subject to the laws of the United States, you ARE a natural born citizen.

So, osama could pop a kid here, go raise him in a cave, send him back to this Country to become POTUS...is that what you think The Founders had in mind with the NBC Clause?????.......please tell me your line of reasoning..........dude, waiting......can't wait......

29 posted on 06/22/2010 5:05:52 PM PDT by Las Vegas Ron ("Because without America, there is no free world" - Canada Free Press - MSM, where are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
Talking points again. That case had NOTHING to do with Presidential qualifications.

Have you read the case decision? It most definately does have to do with what we are discussing here in terms of Presidential qualifications:

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,’ contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.

30 posted on 06/22/2010 5:07:07 PM PDT by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
Photobucket The Founders clearly made a difference between Citizens and Natural Born. It is in the Congressional Records. The meaning of the term natural born has been located and it means born to citizen parents.
31 posted on 06/22/2010 5:07:15 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28jc0216%29%29

Did the courts locate this document and the Founders understanding that naturels means natural born..not natural as it is translated today.


32 posted on 06/22/2010 5:12:15 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius; bushpilot1

If you had read the many research threads on this topic, you would not post such ill-informed opions. That is, if your mind is open to knowing what the founders meant by Natural Born Citizen; a qualification that only the President (and obviously VP) need to have; unlike all other political positions.

bushpilot1 and many others have done incredible detective work; you should look into it.


33 posted on 06/22/2010 5:12:32 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron
Don't have to wait long. We are not talking about "reasoning" or "thoughts" here. We are talking about law.

The Constitution was amended in 1868 to include a very specific sentence. Was Madison consulted on this amendment? No, he had died by then. So those who wrote it, changed the Constitution in their own time and for their own reasons. They changed it in part to read:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

Around 1870, a baby (Wong Kim Ark) was born to two Chinese citizen parents in San Fransisco. He left as a child and wanted to return from China to the United States later, but the United States had enacted a law prohibiting the immigration of Chinese citizens. His case went to the Supreme Court where they found that since he was born here, he was a natural born citizen and could thus move back.

The dissenting Justices in this case used the same Vattel style arguments. But the Supreme Court found in Ark's favor.

This is my line of reasoning: The Constitution was modified to allow this rule of citizenship by place of birth. The law has been clearly codified by Congressional action. The Supreme Court has upheld this interpretation.

Now if you don't like it, you have every right to attempt to amend the Constitution. I would even vote for it.

34 posted on 06/22/2010 5:17:37 PM PDT by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

I can understand why leftists’ minds are shut tight to the truth; or they know he ain’t a NBC but just don’t care.

But why people who supposedly consider themselves conservatives don’t want to know the truth is what boggles my mind.

In my experience Freepers who think “this will go nowhere” just don’t bother to post on these threads. They spend their valuable time fighting in other areas, not fighting those trying to get the truth out about 0thugga’s eligibility or research it.

Nothing like fighting against those trying to get to the truth!


35 posted on 06/22/2010 5:18:54 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
I have looked into it.

The Constitution is clear.
The U.S. Code is clear.
The Supreme Court ruling as precendent are clear.

One thing that is consistantly ignored by those who claim Vattel as their authority is this little phrase in the Constitution:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Vattel is no more the supreme law of the land than is the "seperation of Church and State" that Jefferson wrote about.

36 posted on 06/22/2010 5:21:54 PM PDT by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
Around 1870, a baby (Wong Kim Ark) was born to two Chinese citizen parents in San Fransisco. He left as a child and wanted to return from China to the United States later, but the United States had enacted a law prohibiting the immigration of Chinese citizens. His case went to the Supreme Court where they found that since he was born here, he was a natural born citizen and could thus move back.

Total BS.

From Ankeny again:

"We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language..."

Because Wong Ark was not that's why.

As it says in quotes above, Justice Gray who wrote the Opinion never proclaimed him as a natural born citizen. He couldn't make that fly and neither can you.

37 posted on 06/22/2010 5:23:32 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius

It has been discussed ad nauseum and debunked on this forum. I am not discussing it for the 1,000th time. Let’s stick to the Constitution and the Founders intent and the records that they left.


38 posted on 06/22/2010 5:24:37 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius

“The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,’ contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.” ...snip... “But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. “

Please note that the ruling states, “But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES DEFINED in the Constitution.” And in both cases, it lists the circumstances which includes your “loophole” (as you like to call it) which reads, “...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...”!!!

You see, there was a reason for this portion and it did not only have to do with the legal jurisdiction! It had to do with allegiance as noted by the words of the author and those who argued the Amendment before it became law!

Just because you and others have decided to ignore the words and use your own “loophole” does not change what the intent of the law was and should be again!


39 posted on 06/22/2010 5:24:44 PM PDT by ExTxMarine (Hey Congress: Go Conservative or Go Home!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Harlan used the exact same arguments in their dissent of the Ark case. Read their dissent in that case (http://supreme.justia.com/us/169/649/case.html) and see if it doesn’t sound just like the arguments presented here.

And yet, they were overruled 7 to 2. Ark won his case, even with the arguments we have seen presented. This being a legal matter, legal precedent was set.

It’s not a personal fight for my part. It’s simply the very plain interpretation of the words written in the Constitution, the words written in the U.S. Code, and the findings of the Supreme Court in cases that are brought before it in interpretation of the Constitution and U.S. Code.


40 posted on 06/22/2010 5:27:50 PM PDT by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

They knew, we know, and Obama knows. He is just committed to the destruction of this Republic.

“Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man.” Samuel Adams

“The liberties of our Country, the freedom of our civil constitution are worth defending at all hazards: And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have receiv’d them as a fair Inheritance from our worthy Ancestors: They purchas’d them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood; and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us without a struggle; or be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.” - Samuel Adams


41 posted on 06/22/2010 5:27:57 PM PDT by Jeff Head (Freedom is not free...never has been, never will be. (www.dragonsfuryseries.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Yeah. It’s stunning that a “conservative” would think that the old dudes that had just fought a bloody, horrible war, would let someone with divided loyalties be elected President. My hubby, who hasn’t ever been on these threads, just said that Juan and Conchitas baby is NOT an NBC. He went to school when you atually were taught truth.


42 posted on 06/22/2010 5:28:48 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius

This is my line of reasoning: The Constitution was modified to allow this rule of citizenship by place of birth. The law has been clearly codified by Congressional action. The Supreme Court has upheld this interpretation</>LOL....actually LMFAO....you’re an amature....you need some serious catching up to do.


43 posted on 06/22/2010 5:30:26 PM PDT by Las Vegas Ron ("Because without America, there is no free world" - Canada Free Press - MSM, where are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
This is my line of reasoning: The Constitution was modified to allow this rule of citizenship by place of birth. The law has been clearly codified by Congressional action. The Supreme Court has upheld this interpretation

LOL....actually LMFAO....you're an amature....you need some serious catching up to do.

44 posted on 06/22/2010 5:32:24 PM PDT by Las Vegas Ron ("Because without America, there is no free world" - Canada Free Press - MSM, where are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Amen....preach it FRiend!!!!!!

But why people who supposedly consider themselves conservatives don’t want to know the truth is what boggles my mind.

45 posted on 06/22/2010 5:35:52 PM PDT by Las Vegas Ron ("Because without America, there is no free world" - Canada Free Press - MSM, where are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius; Lurking Libertarian
Photobucket Photobucket Did the Courts have these documents depicting the Founders meaning and understanding naturels means natural born?
46 posted on 06/22/2010 5:36:45 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron

You are sad. Don’t bother reading the decisions in the Ark case, it will just make you depressed and remove you from your silly little fantasy world where Vattel wrote the Constitution.


47 posted on 06/22/2010 5:36:46 PM PDT by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

Once again - in your translation, “natural born” is translating “indigenes”, not “naturels”.

The document you discovered translates “sujets naturels” as natural born subjects - which would enforce the idea of common law “natual born subjects”, since otherwise it would translate to “natural subjects”. The ‘born’ comes from the phrase in English common law.

In other words, you’ve shown nothing useful to your case. You have shown that English common law was the source of their thinking...


48 posted on 06/22/2010 5:39:36 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius

You are ignoring the fact that the Constitution uses the phrase “Natural Born Citizen” ONLY for the President. It is crystal clear that “Natural Born Citizen” means something OTHER and MORE than a regular old citizen.

It’s patently obvious. Maybe you’re too smart to see it, it’s clear as a bell to most people who look into it in any depth whose minds aren’t made up beforehand.


49 posted on 06/22/2010 5:41:38 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
You are sad.

No, not sad in the sense that I have lost an argument to you, sad for my Country and those of your ilk who show up to defend a POS like bammie yes.

Let me give you some advice, go ACTUALLY READ WKA, DIGEST THE WORDS and comprehend them.......then get back to us.

50 posted on 06/22/2010 5:42:55 PM PDT by Las Vegas Ron ("Because without America, there is no free world" - Canada Free Press - MSM, where are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-278 next last

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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