Posted on 11/16/2011 6:31:19 PM PST by circumbendibus
A hearing is scheduled in front of the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission on Friday to hear a complaint filed by Orly Taitz, with the apparent support of two state lawmakers, that raises allegations of fraudulent documents and fraudulent Social Security Number use on the part of Barack Obama.
The hearing is scheduled Friday at 2 p.m. in Room 307 of the New Hampshire Legislative Office Building and Taitz is encouraging the public to be present.
The state holds the first primary for presidential elections, and that is scheduled for Jan. 10, 2012.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Do you have a link to this?
I’ll see what I can do.
Seems to be referencing Daniels in Dred Scott.
Try this link..not sure if it will work. I typed Vattel, Book 1, cap. 19, p. 101 in Google Books. Trying to locate references to Justice Daniel quoting Vattel.
Located the original document in pdf.
http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/usccr/documents/cr11959.pdf
not sure if the documents are the same from the umaryland site and the link in google books.
I think I found that one. It wasn’t the correct document. We want the hearings, not the report issued by the commission. Real close though. I’m downloading your version now just to see, but the File name is exactly the same as the one I already downloaded.
Found what I believe might be a copy of one of the documents. This is what it says.
“2d. What are the people? The early political writers indiscriminately use the words community, society, state, nation, body of the community, and [48 U.S. 1, 22] great body of the people, to express the same idea, and sometimes the words the governed are used in the same sense.
Sydney on Government, ch. 1, 2, 3; Locke on Government, B. 2, ch. 8 , 95 et seq., ch. 13, &c.; Burgh’s Pol. Dis., Vol. I. ch. 2, 3, Vol. III. pp. 275-278; Vattel, L. N., p. 18; Virginia Convention, 1775, pp. 16, 27, 42, 78; Declaration of Amer. Ind., &c.; Trevett v. Weeden, Varnum’s Argument in 1787; Wilson’s Works, Vol. I. pp. 17, 20, 25, 417, 420, Vol. II. p. 128, Vol. III. p. 291; Federalist, Nos. 1, 7, 14, 21, 22, 39, 40, 63; Virginia Convention, 1788, pp. 46, 57, 58, 64, 65, 67-70, 79, 87, 95, & c.; 2 Dall. Rep. 448, 449, 452, 454, 458, 470-472; 3 Dall. Rep. 86, 92-94; 1 Tuck. Bl. Com., Pt. 1, note at p. 89, App., pp. 4, 9, 87; 1 Cranch, Rep. 176; Helvidius, p. 78 (by Mr. Madison); Rayner’s Life of Jefferson, 377, 378; John Taylor, of Car., pp. 4, 412, 413, 519, 447; Rawle on the Const., pp. 14-17.
He cites Vattel, and uses the word people in the same sense Vattel had used the word state.
4 Wheaton’s Reports, p. 404; Story’s Com. on the Const., Vol. I., B. 2, 201-204, &c.; Virginia Convention, 1829, 1830; Debates in Congress, ( Michigan,) Reg. Deb., Vol. XIII. Pt. 1; Everett’s Address, Jan. 9, 1836; Burke’s Report.
All the American political writers, &c., use the term people to express the entire numerical aggregate of the community, whether state or national, in contradistinction to the government or legislature.
Mr. Burke, in his Report, cited above, says, that ‘the (political) people include all free white male persons of the age of twenty-one years, who are citizens of the state, are of sound mind, and have not forfeited their right by some crime against the society of which they are members.’
3d. Where resides the ultimate power or sovereignty? “
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=48&invol=1
Thanks lets look for the 1959 Congressional testimony where Vattel was cited saying natural born citizens are born to citizen parents.
Placemark.
... and then cue the Obots who will say “Vattel is just some french philosopher” ... or “that’s racist” ...
Can u open or get inside the document?
page 1806 is an interest.
No, not from that source.
Here is where I think we may find it.
http://www.archives.gov/legislative/guide/senate/chapter-13-judiciary-1947-1968.html#SCR
under:
Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights
—
Will look further later. Have Monday morning commitments.
oops, that is for the Senate. Probably should be looking for the House version.
So here is the revised version.
That term natural born Citizen was common knowledge to the founding fathers and it’s meaning is "children born of parents who are Citizens on the land are natives, or natural born Citizens." This was articulated many times by the founding fathers. Supreme Court decisions for example Minor v Happersett 1870, http://supreme.justia.com/us/88/162/case.html , The Chief justice wrote the following; "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."
A book belonging to John Adams. Page 77 describes natural born Citizens. http://www.archive.org/stream/newabridgementof01baco#page/n8/mode/1up
Some claim that the 14th amendment defines “natural born Citizen.” The 14th amendment was written by John Bingham, reaffirmed the definition known to the framers, not once, but twice during Congressional discussions of Citizenship pertaining to the upcoming 14th Amendment and a 3rd time nearly 4 years after the 14th was adopted. One example quote; "All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens.”
Mr. Obama is not a natural born Citizen.
This might be a place to start looking:
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=senate_subcommittee_on_constitutional_rights_1
Maybe its the Senate we want..
Civil rights, 1959, Volumes 3-4 United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights U. S. Govt. Print. Off., 1959 - Political Science
Yes, I looked back at your original and it was the Senate Committee.
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.