Posted on 01/13/2011 2:23:49 PM PST by bushpilot1
“That is one rule that Congress should rethink and another is awarding citizenship to everyone born in the United States”
United States Citizenship, United States Department of Justice Immigration & Naturalization Service Interpretation Letter, Interpretation including the children of illegal immigrants whose sole motive in immigrating was to confer U.S. citizenship on their as yet unborn children.
This rule, though thought by some compelled by section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides 621*621 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,
Oforji v. Ashcroft, 354 F. 3d 609 - Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 2003 citing WKA
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10683031563320755852&hl=en&num=100&as_sdt=2,5&kqfp=16824047572209870235&kql=100&kqpfp=1832645
Ah, the familiar arrogance of the Obots, for whom success is measured by the confusion they generate among neophytes trying to learn the truth. The lesson to be learned from this Obot, SeeSac, is to trust original sources. Read Vattel. The essence of Vattel' Law of Nations is his extension of the natural (natural law) notion, a notion with which few would argue, that “The great end of every being, endowed with intellect and sentiment, is happiness.” from individuals to nations.
Take a look at the Chapters in Book 1 of Vattel, and then ignore anything SeeSac, who is obviously an Obama activist, says. Chapter IV, “Of the Sovereign, his Obligations and his Rights.” This chapter inspects the character of the sovereign, his rights, in what sense he is subject to the laws. Chapter V “Of States Elective, Successive, or Hereditary and of those called Patrimonial.” He discusses “Whether elective kings be real sovereigns.” In Chapter VI “Principal Objects of a good Government...,” Vattel examines how “to take care that there be a sufficient number of workmen.” Chapter VII, “Of the Cultivation of the Soil.”
In Chapter 18 Vattel discusses "The Establishment of a Nation in a Country," a timely topic for our future revolutionary leaders. In the next chapter he explores what is needed by that new country - "Of our Native Country, and several Things that relate to it" - among which he examines the different classes of citizens. He explains the "...society cannot exits and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers..." The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children;..." "I say, that, in order to be of the country it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country." This is the clarity which SeeSac would rather you not understand. The fathers of our country, all of them familiar with Vattel, inserted this idea into to our Constitution, with a brief note from John Jay to remind Washington, who owned one of the early English translations of Law of Nations, which was already the first required text in our first law school, founded by Thomas Jefferson in 1779 at William and Mary.
Vattel's Law of Nations is on line. There is a very reasonably priced printed edition published by Liberty Fund available at Amazon. You will quickly see why, to our founders and framers, it became the blueprint for a new nation based upon laws and not men. With lots of experience we have learned to identify those interested in promoting the tyranny of socialism. They don't teach, they attempt to confuse, many of them because they are paid with our tax money.
Vattel was used extensively by our founders trying to make good decisions in their intercourse with nations. But Vattel treated nations as persons. In Vattel’s “Preliminaries” - essentially a preface - he says:
“We shall examine the obligations of a people, as well towards themselves as towards other nations; and by that means we shall discover the rights which result from those obligations.”
One fascinating example is a letter from Alexander Hamilton to Washington in September 1790. I'll quote the comment in its entirety because because Obama's ineligibility is opening a window into our origins, and Hamilton's shrewdness is in evidence in the note. Vattel, the most cited legal reference in the U.S. between 1789 and 1821 (Grotrian Papers, 1972), four times the citations of Pufendorf, in second, was the constant companion of our founders, and the likely source of core cncepts of our civil society.
Washington asked for advice in anticipation of a request from Lord Dorchester who might ask if he can march his troops from Detroit to the Mississippi. Hamilton, clearly well-read in law of nations, tells Washington what Pufendorf, Grotius, and Barbeyrac counseled on the topic and then says:
“But Vatel, perhaps the most accurate and approved of the writers on the laws of nations, preserves a mean between these different opinions. This is the sum of what he advances: That an innocent passage is due to all nations with whom a state is at peace, for troops equally with individuals, and to annoy as well as to avoid an enemy. That the party asking and the party asked are both, in different degrees, judges of the question when innocent? That where the party asked has good reasons for refusing, he is not under any obligation to grant, and in doubtful cases his judgment ought to be definitive; but in evident ones, or those in which the harmlessness of the passage is manifest, the party asking may, in the last resort, judge for himself, and after demand and refusal may force his way. That nevertheless, as it is very difficult for the passage of a powerful army to be absolutely innocent, and still more difficult for its innocence to be apparent, a refusal ought to be submitted to, except in those very rare cases when it can be shown in the most palpable manner that the passage required is absolutely without danger or inconvenience. And lastly, that this right of passage is only due in a war not materially unjust.”
Vattel’s advice was as applicable to our Civil War as to the British of whom we were recently subjects. Vattel's book is legal philosophy. Many, but not all of his ideas are part of our Constitution. As chief justices John Marshall and Morrison Waite, and Charles Evans Hughes, justice Horace Gray and 14th Amendment Congressman John Bingham confirmed, we adopted Vattel's definition of natural born citizenship.
All my posts were directed to US court decisions were posted buy that dude. I was going to the source of his quotes, the actual decisions. So, I was going to the original sources. If my facts (which you do not dispute) cause confusion, it it because you are confused. I notice that you did not dispute my facts in the post but go on a personal smear attack. Thank you.
You’re right.
No matter what documents, rules, precedents, or whatever we would put in the left’s collective face,
it doesn’t matter. They put no authority in such things. Only the here and now, and only their own “self-defined as superior” judgement has any value.
An even more influential thinker was Emmerich de Vattel's work mainly involved international law but contained some important observations on natural law. He postulated that society is obliged to preserve its members and cannot override their natural right to self defense. If the sovereign violates fundamental rights, the nation as a whole can withdraw its obedience. Vattel’s extensive writings on international law have been deeply influential in terms of U.S. law – for example, he has been cited over 150 times by the United States Supreme Court, including as recently as 2004.
Actually, the blueprint was English law.
Interesting. You put laws above man. I thought that man had inherent rights that were above the 'law'.
If the court was referring to Vattel's book then wouldn't 'law of nations' be capitalized?
Hey man, wasn’t there a case at SCOTUS which was going to get accepted by the court today or refused? I can’t remember which one it is.
The Hollister case Danae.
...and I found it at the SCOTUS website.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-678.htm
Thanks RS. I am watching the court site myself today.
If SCOTUS refuses to hear this case.... we are screwed.
You’ll also notice that the leftist law firm Perkins Coie is representing Barry Soetoro in this case.
They have been since the start, even when the wife of the lawyer on the case was working in the White House. Isn’t the attorney who had the case now a counselor for the White House himself now?
I forget his name.
Likely so. SCOTUS has their heads in the sand. Now the line of defense against the usurper is to get states to enact ballot eligibility laws for presidential candidates to prove they are natural born citizens for 2012.
Robert Bauer. His wife Anita Dunn is Mao Zedong fan.
Yep.
I have been looking at the SCOTUS site, but there is nothing regarding their schedule for the day. Grrrrrrr
If the GOP gets back in in 2012 we need to have a renewed policy, a new diplomatic agreement with any nation that agrees to. And it should make it clear that citizens of those nations my visit the U.S. for 30 days a year, those without these agreement, no more than 30 days in 5 yrs. if at all. And watch your mouth, you WILL be taken seriously.
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.