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

Skip to comments.

Rubio, Amnesty and Article II
Right Side News ^ | 4/28/2012 | JB Williams

Posted on 04/28/2012 7:40:56 AM PDT by IbJensen

I realize that many Tea Party folks have fallen for leftist tricks aimed at keeping the current Article II constitutional crisis off the campaign table, but just how far are they willing to fall in the name of political agendas?

Real “constitutionalists” are as concerned about Article II as they are any other constitutional text, maybe even more so since the current Muslim-n-Chief is a one-man constitutional crisis of monumental proportions. Faux “constitutionalists” are those who cherry-pick which parts of the founding document to take issue with, or make up new meanings for old words, all based on their individual political agenda.

Many Tea Party folks seem to not care whether or not we uphold Article II constitutional requirements for the offices of President and Vice President. Others seem perfectly happy to accept fraudulent definitions of the term “Natural Born Citizen” so long as it suits their political agenda. In both cases, our founding principles and values take a back seat to political expedience.

However, there is a reason why members of congress tried to alter the Natural Born Citizen requirement at least eight times in the run-up to Obama’s fraudulent election in 2008 – why leftists insist that the founders meant “anchor baby” when they required that only Natural Born Citizens of the United States could hold the highest offices in our land – and that Marco Rubio would make the perfect VP selection for Mitt Romney in 2012….

In short, the reason is -- kill the constitution and AMNESTY by any means.

Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is without any reasonable doubt, a total fraud, and ineligible for the office he currently holds. Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen of the United States and neither is Marco Rubio.

So, to keep Obama in office, leftists must eliminate the true meaning of the term Natural Born Citizen and the best way to do that is to get Republicans to put their own ineligible candidate on the GOP ticket with Romney… enter Marco Rubio, who otherwise has a very weak résumé.

Simply stated, a Natural Born Citizen is a citizen via the bloodline of the natural birth father. Obama’s natural birth father was never a legal citizen of the United States. He was at all times a legal citizen of Kenya and as such, he could only pass Kenyan citizenship to his offspring, Barack Hussein Obama II.

Likewise, Marco Rubio’s father was a legal citizen of Cuba at the time of Marco’s birth, and he could only pass Cuban citizenship to Marco. Marco Rubio was therefore, born a Natural Born Citizen of Cuba, living abroad in exile in the United States. Rubio’s parents did not become U.S. citizens for several years after Marco’s birth.

In contrast, Mitt Romney was born in Detroit a Natural Born Citizen of the United States as the son of a natural birth father (Gov. George Romney) who was at the time of Mitt’s birth, a legal citizen of the United States able to transfer Natural Born Citizenship via the Laws of Nature.

Even as confirmed by the U.S. Senate in a 99-0 unanimous vote, John McCain is also a Natural Born Citizen of the United States, born abroad in Panama to a legal U.S. Citizen father. This proves that all Senators know the true definition of Natural Born Citizen and that they knowingly and willingly refuse to apply that standard to Barack Hussein Obama or Marco Rubio.

We know why leftists who have tried to alter or abolish the Article II Natural Born Citizen requirement for years would want Marco Rubio, RNC leader for illegal amnesty, to appear on the GOP ticket in 2012 --- but why do many Tea Party and GOP voters want Rubio on the ticket?

First, placing Rubio on the GOP ticket would galvanize the fraud of 2008 when America seated its first non-Natural Born Citizen in the Oval Office. Second, Hispanic immigrant Rubio is leading the charge for illegal amnesty in the GOP -- a position allegedly opposed by Tea Party and patriotic type voters.

How is Rubio being shoved down the throat of pro-American voters? --- The “why” is obvious, once you understand our current dilemma…Who is voting this November?

USA Demographics White Anglo-American – 64.9% Hispanic – 15.1% African-American – 12.9% Asian – 4.4% Other – 3%

Now pay close attention….

“The longstanding gap between blacks and whites in voter participation evaporated in the presidential election last year, according to an analysis released Thursday. Black, Hispanic and Asian voters made up nearly a quarter of the electorate, setting a record.” – The New York Times reported in April 2009.

If 50% of white Anglo-American voters stay home or vote a 3rd option of any sort in protest, guess who has a voting majority in America today? These folks seldom pass up an opportunity to vote themselves gifts from your wallet…

People forever seeking to vote themselves gifts from the treasury, and “change” America into something it was never intended to be, are showing up to VOTE in increasing numbers -- just as frustrated White Anglo-American voters stay home in increasing numbers. Their “conscience” will allow the re-election of the first anti-American and illegal White House resident. What kind of conscience is that?

African-Americans are no longer the second largest voting bloc in America. They have been replaced by Hispanics over the last several years, over half of which are in the Unites States illegally. Now they are able to vote thanks to insane moto-voter and “no ID required” voting laws put in place to make fraudulent illegal alien votes “legal” throughout most of the U.S. – It’s unconstitutional, immoral, unethical and even treasonous… but they found a way to make it “defacto-legal.”

In many states, lawmakers foolishly passed laws to give drivers licenses to illegal aliens, and then passed laws requiring only a photo ID, such as a driver’s license, in order to vote in U.S. elections. The illegal alien vote is now equal to the legal citizen vote, even before formal amnesty is a reality. Dead people can vote, why not illegal aliens?

And since the Hispanic community is growing by leaps and bounds, pouring across our southern border like a stampede of young peaceniks headed to the next Woodstock, politicians feel obligated to pander for that vote even if they have to offend every legal citizen doing it.

The DNC wants Marco Rubio on the 2012 GOP ticket to forever eliminate the Natural Born Citizen requirement for high office. But the RNC wants him on the ticket too, in order to pander for the 15.1% Hispanic Amnesty vote that will otherwise go to Barack Hussein Obama in November.

If Americans allow Rubio to appear on the GOP ticket, Article II requirements for high office are forever gone and amnesty is a sure deal.

I get why RNC and DNC inside the beltway scumbags want this, but why are Tea Party folks foolish enough to go along with it?

Maybe it’s time to ask who these Tea Party folks really are?


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Foreign Affairs; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: rubio
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-120 next last
To: New Jersey Realist
...unless the Supreme Court takes a stand and actually defines NBC.
They already have. See Minor vs Happersett.
51 posted on 04/28/2012 11:20:38 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot

Ignore my #46. I understand your position clearer now.


52 posted on 04/28/2012 11:22:36 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist
and I would bet every dime I own on this, an anchor baby will one day run for President, and there will not be a court in the land that will stop him.

On that we agree 100%, in fact I would go a step further and say that it has alread happened and not one court has ruled on the merits of the challenge. You are Physic or something.

These little distractions are just that, the real battle is literally for control of the world, is is just that we as a sort or religious Republic are in the way. Remove us and, well the NWO seems like the solution to the chaos that will follow. Do you think that the UN is here by accident?

53 posted on 04/28/2012 11:31:03 AM PDT by itsahoot (I will not vote for Romney period, and by election day you won't like him either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

Franklin acknowledged the receipt of the Law of Nations and he wrote a very nice thank you note. I don’t see the connection.


54 posted on 04/28/2012 11:38:48 AM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
I understand your position clearer now.

No you don't I just said I found nothing in post 1 that I didn't agree with. If you disagree then say so. My very first post on this thread stated that his post would bring out hundreds of pages of court decisions and precedent positions all of which would lead no where. Arguing with lawyers is about a sane as trying to argue with a Berkley Communist.

The only hope on this subject is to somehow get the argument into an honest court, to look at the fraudulent documents that have been presented to create the unknown president that we have.

I really don't understand all the support here for the status quo, unless there really is no concern for the preservation of the Republic.

55 posted on 04/28/2012 11:40:49 AM PDT by itsahoot (I will not vote for Romney period, and by election day you won't like him either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot

Obummer did provide proof. It was a forgery but it was his proof. In it was stated that his father was not a citizen of this country. NOT ONE SINGLE AUTHORITY pointed out that his father must be a U.S. citizen in order for him to be qualified. That is why I say we need a definitive definition of CBC and that must be issued by the Supremes somehow.

What would have stopped his mother from putting a U.S. citizens name on the document? People lie. Hospitals are not qualified to determine the truth. Anyone can say anything and get a valid birth certificate for their child.

You say we need an honest judge. I completely agree. When one finally does show up the case will try to make its way up to the Supreme Court and it will be cut off by some liberal appelate court. This is an unwinnable situation.


56 posted on 04/28/2012 11:51:23 AM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist

“There are two classes of citizens in this country”

“Classes” Actually your choice of words is poor, because a naturalized citizen is equal to a native born citizen in every way that matters. This was by design, so that a naturalized citizen would not be a “second class” citizen.

There are two TYPES of citizens in this country.

Native born (citizen at birth) relying on your birth status

Naturalized (citizen by statute) relying on a law

A “Natural Born Citizen” is not a different type of citizen. They are Native born citizens with additional requirements should they run for president (Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution)

OR Vice president (Article. XII)

Cry as you will, these are the facts., PERIOD!


57 posted on 04/28/2012 11:52:04 AM PDT by faucetman ( Just the facts, ma'am, Just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot
I understand your position clearer now.

No you don't I just said I found nothing in post 1 that I didn't agree with.

Yes, I do. You've stated much more than just that you found nothing in post 1 that you didn't agree with as is evidenced in your reply 50 alone.

The NBC issue to me is a simple one based on common sense, but that will never fly in this thread. Suffice to say it is only a means to an end in attempt to prove that every document produced ha been a fraud, and further the leadership in both parties knew them to be fraudulent. Which either makes them incredibly stupid or complicit, I chose the latter.

The more you say (type) the clearer what you think and believe becomes.

58 posted on 04/28/2012 11:53:13 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot

I think the NWO is firmly in place and we are the last to fall. I know both Bush’s are part of it along with Gore, McShame, Kerry, Clinton, Romney and I suspect Obummer’s trying to get in. They are all against us and I don’t know what to do. My fear is that it is already too late.


59 posted on 04/28/2012 11:57:31 AM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: faucetman

I apologize. I didn’t mean class in that sense. Type or category is a better word. Thanks for the pick-up. Believe me, serving in the military for 20 years I know what a second class citizen is - we lived it. Things are better now as I understand it.


60 posted on 04/28/2012 12:03:28 PM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist
“NOT ONE SINGLE AUTHORITY pointed out that his father must be a U.S. citizen in order for him to be qualified.”

As impossible as it might sound, they didn't know any better. You say “ah c’mon”. Oh, like a guy born in Kenya could become president?

Early on a group of patriots went to Washington and interviewed Orin Hatch in his office and questioned him about Obama and Natural Born eligibility. Hatch was CLUELESS! The chairman of or ranking member of the judiciary committee since forever, didn't understand the Constitution.

Before this issue came up about Obama, how many of you were aware of this requirement? 35 years old and resident for 14 years, was all I ever knew. “Natural Born Citizen? What the hell is that?

61 posted on 04/28/2012 12:05:41 PM PDT by faucetman ( Just the facts, ma'am, Just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot
I understand your position clearer now.
No you don't...
Yes, I do.

#66

And you're, understandably, really cynical as well, but I won't bother posting links to those comments.

62 posted on 04/28/2012 12:12:16 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: faucetman

Come to think of it. Did Thomas Jefferson meet the 14 years residency requirement? He lived in Paris for a time didn’t he?

I subscribe to one of the definitions of Occam’s Razor which is when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better. Regarding NBC, it is much more prudent to believe that the framers took the common understanding (or English) version rather than Vattel’s version which the common populace was unaware of. Just makes sense. Of the two types of citizens; natural born and naturalized only the natural born could be President. It is so simple in its concept that people just want to make it difficult.


63 posted on 04/28/2012 12:18:54 PM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

64 posted on 04/28/2012 12:21:34 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist
I agree with you on this post.

What makes Obama's situation unique is the demand to show the documentation. This is also what drives people to lay the claim of racism on those who ask Obama to provide proof. They say that showing the documentation is a standard that no other president was forced to comply with, and so it's racism because doubters are only doing it because Obama is black.

That's how attempts to get to the bottom of this begin its path to failure. It gets the taint of racism from the start, and then nobody wants to touch it after that.

The truth is that the reason Obama's situation is unique is that he is the first president to have no other birth witnesses and long-time close family friends to attest to his lineage. All previous presidents were from families that were well-known in American history such that the qualifaction to be president was never in doubt.

Obama has hidden his past, locked up the records, and only offered his own self-serving sources as qualification to be president.

So, the last resort of redress is the Constitution itself and the bodies it establishes. And we've come to the point of searching for shadows from the penumbras of emanations in defense.

We shouldn't have to be here when the common sense obvious is plainly before us.

And now we get to do it all over again with Marco Rubio. Rubio's birth narrative is known. This one is eyes-wide-open.

-PJ

65 posted on 04/28/2012 12:24:44 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you can vote for President, then your children can run for President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: faucetman
Before this issue came up about Obama, how many of you were aware of this requirement?
I see by your sign in date that you weren't around in 2003-2004 when the Hatch Amendment was being talked about...

hatch amendment site:freerepublic.com Arnold Schwarzenegger potus

Early on a group of patriots went to Washington and interviewed Orin Hatch in his office and questioned him about Obama and Natural Born eligibility. Hatch was CLUELESS!
Hatch played ignorant when he obviously wasn't.

66 posted on 04/28/2012 12:26:13 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: faucetman
@"Only those born in the U.S.A. may apply." That, in effect, is what the Constitution says to naturalized citizens who might think about running for president. They may not do so. "No Person," states Article II, Section 1, "except a natural born Citizen ... shall be eligible to the Office of President."
67 posted on 04/28/2012 12:28:22 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist
"It was common knowledge at the time that a natural born citizen was a citizen born of the soil. You cannot prove otherwise. You have an agenda my FRiend."

Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defined Natural Born Citizen in 1789.

The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776.

68 posted on 04/28/2012 12:32:41 PM PDT by Godebert (NO PERSON EXCEPT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

DemoRATS are praying that Rubio is the choice in order to take the heat off OBastard. I have no doubt that his BC is a forgery. This is the most secretative man in our presidential history. He is not American (soil or parental wise) and he should be imprisoned along with that mooch of a wife who goes along with his lies. I feel sorry for his kids.


69 posted on 04/28/2012 12:33:58 PM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist
No need to apologize! But, words mean things. I apologize, if I came off rude. I am just frustrated over this citizenship issue because most people (used to include me) are completely mistaken when it comes to understanding citizenship. They are sure they know all about it. Everyone knows that!

In fact it can be quite complicated and most of us were never taught it in school. I spent a lot of time researching this issue, including citizenship minutia about islands I never heard of.

How many people think if you are born in a foreign country and your mother runs into the American embassy there and gives birth, that you, by being born in that embassy, (American soil) you are a citizen?

You might be a citizen of that foreign country, but you are NOT a U.S. citizen just for being born there. (status of parents comes into play here) IT IS NOT U.S. SOIL!

As I have written before, the only completely safe place to be born to insure the jus soli (right of the soil) half of the Natural Born requirement, is to be born in the Continental United States.

As we have seen with Obama Hawaii has some crazy rules, and was a territory until 1959. Still recently enough for someone born before that to run for president. Same for Alaska 1959.

Being born in U.S. territories and possessions likely will make you ineligible for president. In the very least, there will be questions. It may depend on which side of an Island you are born on. It may depend on the date you were born in that territory (Puerto Rico for instance). Most territories or possessions are acquired by statute, making people there and future citizens “citizens by statute”, NATURALIZED citizens, ineligible for president.

It is NOT cut & dried as most people think.

70 posted on 04/28/2012 12:35:00 PM PDT by faucetman ( Just the facts, ma'am, Just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Godebert

Too bad he didn’t post his thoughts IN the Constitution where it would carry weight.


71 posted on 04/28/2012 12:44:38 PM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Not sure how Arnold Schwarzenegger or the Hatch amendment is relevant to this discussion.

“A person who is a citizen of the United States, who has been for 20 years a citizen of the United States, and who is otherwise eligible to the Office of President, is not ineligible to that Office by reason of not being a native born citizen of the United States.”

Read more: http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/schwarzenegger-constitutional-amendment-hatched/#ixzz1tMkrA1Sv

I don't see “Natural” in there anywhere? I think everyone knew that you had to be born here to be president. That is a given. That the framers made additional special provisions applying only to the office of president. If the status of your parents made no difference, then what would be the need of a special condition of citizenship? What, they made a mistake and meant to say “native”? A TYPO?

Using your Ockham’s Razor thinking, the framers wanted to be sure that the Command and Chief of the army (the president), would not have ANY foreign allegiances (FACT).

So isn't it just simple that the framers meant to prevent anyone from becoming president who had parents who were foreign citizens? That would be the most obvious foreign allegiance.

72 posted on 04/28/2012 1:07:38 PM PDT by faucetman ( Just the facts, ma'am, Just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: faucetman
Not sure how Arnold Schwarzenegger or the Hatch amendment is relevant to this discussion.
Well you did state this...
Early on a group of patriots went to Washington and interviewed Orin Hatch in his office and questioned him about Obama and Natural Born eligibility. Hatch was CLUELESS!
So when you state that, according to them, "Hatch was CLUELESS" it's apparent on it's face that Hatch couldn't have been "clueless" as he proposed an amendment that would change the very intent of the FF by removing the "natural born" aspect in Article 2.

I don't see “Natural” in there anywhere?
Exactly! It was to be removed!

Is your sudden angst against me because I've shown that the issue was known about as early as 2003?

73 posted on 04/28/2012 1:51:54 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: faucetman
In my opinion, the reason it says "native" insted of "natural" is to get around amending the Constitution.

If they said "natural," it would be construed to mean a direct reference to "natural born citizen," making it an attempt to amend the Constitution. Amendments to the Constitution require 3/4ths of the states to ratify.

They tried to be cute about it and substitute the word "native" in place of "natural" with a wink and a nod, intending it to mean one thing while wording it like another.

-PJ

74 posted on 04/28/2012 1:54:22 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you can vote for President, then your children can run for President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: faucetman
Using your Ockham’s Razor thinking...
See reply #63 and get your posters lined up properly.
Don't infer upon me another person's argument.
75 posted on 04/28/2012 1:55:02 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
In my opinion, the reason it says "native" insted of "natural" is to get around amending the Constitution.
It was introduced as a constitutional amendment.
76 posted on 04/28/2012 2:00:57 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

I apologize a zillion + times and much, much more for my rudeness to you.

I just get so frustrated with folks who still think Panama Juan was not born in Colon, Republic of Panama. The truth has been out concerning where he was actually born for about the last 3 years. Like any congresscrook, he lied in his book.

The Kenyan bastard and Marco Rubio are not natural born citizens…the bastard’s father was not a U.S. citizen and Rubio because his Cuban parents were not U.S. citizens at the time of Rubio’s birth.

I know nothing about Rick Santorum’s family history other than his father, Aldo Santorum (1923–2011), a clinical psychologist who immigrated to the United States at age seven from Riva del Garda, Italy, and Catherine (Dughi) Santorum (b. 1918), an administrative nurse of Italian American and Irish American descent. In other words, I don’t know when Aldo got his U.S. citizenship papers.

I am more concern about Mitt Romney. His father, George, was born in Mexico and therefore a Mexican citizen. Questions that need to be asked and answered: When did George get his U.S. citizenship? Before Mitt was born? After Mitt was born? Or not at all and lived a lie throughout his life?

Since I live in Panama, I don’t have accesses to the research I need to answer those questions about George Romney, which would lead to the truth about Mitt’s eligibility status.

Again, my sincerest apologies to you.


77 posted on 04/28/2012 2:14:49 PM PDT by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Oh, that's right.

This was the Hatch attempt to make it okay for Schwarzenegger to become president.

The reason the Democrats supported it was that they thought Jennifer Granholm would beat Schwarzenegger to it.

Hatch picked two losers with one bill.

-PJ

78 posted on 04/28/2012 2:33:29 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you can vote for President, then your children can run for President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)

Apology gladly accepted. We have heated passionate discussions here on Free Republic, and that’s a good thing. The free exchange of ideas is worth a few raised emotions, in my opinion.


79 posted on 04/28/2012 4:06:32 PM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

“Apology gladly accepted. We have heated passionate discussions here on Free Republic, and that’s a good thing. The free exchange of ideas is worth a few raised emotions, in my opinion.”

You are an extremely kind person. But I am not letting myself off easy. My conduct toward you was inexcusable...ever.

Sitting here, I think I came up with a solution about George (Mitt’s father)...when he became a U.S. citizen or not. But loose lips sink ships; therefore, more later.

My very best to you. We will talk later.

My apologies again.


80 posted on 04/28/2012 4:37:40 PM PDT by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist
I don’t see the connection.

How about someone who signed both the Declaration and the Constitution and was appointed to an Associate Justice in the Pennsylvania District Court by President Washington;

Having given you this general idea and description of the law of nations; need I expatiate on its dignity and importance? The law of nations is the law of sovereigns. In free states, such as ours, the sovereign or supreme power resides in the people. In free states, therefore, such as ours, the law of nations is the law of the people. Let us again beware of being misled by an ambiguity, sometimes, such is the structure of language, unavoidable. When I say that, in free states, the law of nations is the law of the people; I mean not that it is a law made by the people, or by virtue of their delegated authority; as, in free states, all municipal laws are. But when I say that, in free states, the law of nations is the law of the people; I mean that, as the law of nature, in other words, as the will of nature's God, it is indispensably binding upon the people, in whom the sovereign power resides; and who are, consequently, under the most sacred obligations to exercise that power, or to delegate it to such as will exercise it, in a manner agreeable to those rules and maxims, which the law of nature prescribes to every state, for the happiness of each, and for the happiness of all.
Of the Law of Nations, James Wilson, Lectures on Law

Or a man who was a Virginia Distinct Supreme Court Justice appointed by President Madison;

Of the Unwritten, or Common Law of England; And Its Introduction into, and Authority Within the United American States
....And because this principle was supposed not to have been expressed with sufficient precision, and certainty, an amendatory article was proposed, adopted, and ratified; whereby it is expressly declared, that, "the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." This article is, indeed, nothing more than an express recognition of the law of nations; for Vattel informs us, "that several sovereign, and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without each in particular ceasing to be a perfect state.
George Tucker

Which would be Vattel's Law of Nations - Book I,Chap 1, § 10. Of states forming a federal republic
Finally, several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfill engagements which he has voluntarily contracted.

-----

Tucker repeated Vattel almost verbatim, but if you still aren't convinced, here's the U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates [1774-1875] at the Library of Congress search page.

A search for the exact phrase "law of nations" brings up about 99 results, so knock yourself out.

81 posted on 04/28/2012 4:40:53 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego
tell us if the courts have ever ruled on the exact meaning of “natural born citizen”?

Minor v. Happersett in 1874 is the closest I've seen. It repeats Vattel almost word for word.

Many people seem to think it means that you were born in this country. Others say that your own parents have to also have been American citizens at the time of your birth? Who is right?

It's the citizenship, not the location. The primary source is the father. Just as a child traditionally takes the father's name, the child 'inherits' the citizenship... a lot like eye or hair color.

This is natural born jus sanguinis citizenship, or citizenship by blood.

The other type is a naturalized citizen. This type is jus soli citizenship, or citizenship by soil.

People think the 14th Amendment grants a third kind, a 'native born' citizen that's the same as a natural born, but this is questionable.

Even if the Amendment DID grant some type of citizenship, that citizenship will still not be natural-born, because he was made a citizen by the law of Man, not the Laws of Nature.

Thus the term NATURAL born.

-----

We’re saying that John McCain, Barack Obama, Marco Rubio, and Rick Santorum are all ineligible to be president, under this natural born citizen clause???????

McCain - natural - not only was his father a citizen, Vattel makes exception in the Law of Nations for men in military service.
Barack Obama - naturalized at birth IF he was born in Hawaii
Marco Rubio - naturalized. He became so as a child when his parents were naturalized.
Santorum - natural born - Despite going to Mexico, his father never renounced his citizenship.

Hope that helps. :-)

82 posted on 04/28/2012 5:28:04 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan; All

OK. Vattel’s Law of Nations contains 68 chapters. It is a very large tome. It makes sense that the founders of our country would value such a reference. Out of possibly a million and a half words, how many times do you think natural born citizen is mentioned? NOT ONCE - not in the original and not in the translated version. You listed quite a few words in your post but I didn’t see it once either and that is my point.

I said in a previous post show me a quote from anyone that attributed NBC to Vattel. In his book, Vattel stated that the “naturels” or “indigenes” were those born in a country of parents who were citizens. And he added, “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.”

That is the extent of it and, granted, it is different from what the colonists subscribed to but that doesn’t prove the framers accepted that translation of citizenship. A dozen words and you people have created a movement to suit your agenda. This book was mainly about forming treaties, ambassadors, trade issues, etc.

Let me sum this up. If Vattel’s phrase had never been translated “natural born citizens,” and if “natural born” was a well-known, long-standing term that had been used for centuries to describe subjects of England — not just in England itself but also in the American colonies — and if we have no record whatsoever that actually says that any Founding Father or Framer of the Constitution ever relied on Vattel for the meaning of the term… one begins to wonder why exactly it’s claimed that the meaning came from Vattel?


83 posted on 04/29/2012 5:43:18 AM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Godebert

The evidence is clear that Americans at the time of the writing of the Constitution used the term Natural Born Citizens the way it was in the common law, and never used it in the Vattel sense.

Because of the Wong Kim Ark decision every child born in the USA is Natural Born (except for the children of foreign diplomats).

The Declaration of Independence says: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”

Following that principle, the US born children of foreigners are equal to the US-born children of US citizens. To say that the writers of the Constitution did not really believe it because they really meant that the US-born children of foreigners could not be president while the US-born children of US citizens can insults the framers and makes equality a lie.

It is possible that some of the writers of the Constitution thought that, BUT NONE OF THEM SAID IT.

If there had been letters or articles saying that the Americans at the time feared the US-born children of foreigners, there would be a reason for thinking that the writers of the Declaration were hypocrites when they wrote that all men were created equal. To be sure, some of them did not believe that slaves were equal to freemen. But it is unfair to our founders to assume prejudices that there are no evidence for. Only if they actually said “we believe that the US-born children of foreigners are not equal to the US-born children of US citizens” is it fair to them to believe that they thought it. AND THEY DID NOT SAY IT.


84 posted on 04/29/2012 6:30:16 AM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist
Out of possibly a million and a half words, how many times do you think natural born citizen is mentioned? NOT ONCE - not in the original and not in the translated version.

You didn't look very hard.

THE LAW OF NATIONS / Emmerich de Vattel / Book I / CHAP. XIX.
Of Our Native Country, and Several Things That Relate to It
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
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 citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot 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.

85 posted on 04/29/2012 7:26:34 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist
Because of the Wong Kim Ark decision every child born in the USA is Natural Born

LOL! Wong Kim Ark was a native born citizen of the United States, not a natural born one.

The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. [p666]

The decision says he was 'just as much a citizen' as a natural born one, not that he WAS a natural born one.

He was naturalized at birth.

86 posted on 04/29/2012 7:33:14 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

WOW - one time. That prove beyond doubt that the framers included that term because it was in Vattel’s book. LOL. I’m being sarcastic here Mama. Too bad no one agrees with you. Vattel had lots of ideas we should have used. Check out this:

http://badfiction.typepad.com/badfiction/de-vattels-other-ideas.html.

“I speak of the freedom of philosophical discussion, which is the soul of the republic of letters. … I know that liberty has its proper bounds — that a wise government ought to have an eye to the press, and not to allow the publication of scandalous productions, which attack morality, government, or the established religion.”

And of course my personal favorite:

“… A nation cannot preserve and perpetuate itself, except by propagation. A nation of men has, therefore, a right to procure women, who are absolutely necessary to its preservation; and if its neighbours, who have a redundancy of females, refuse to give some of them in marriage to those men, the latter may justly have recourse to force.”

Well, MamaTexan, still respect this man?


87 posted on 04/29/2012 8:38:02 AM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist
Don't strain yourself trying to pat yourself on the back.

You 'complain' you can't find something, and when it's shown, you ridicule.

You reaction shows you really even weren't interested in the true answer to the question you asked.

------

Well, MamaTexan, still respect this man?

Of course I do.

Interesting your earlier expression mentioned the common laws of England, since you now try to cast dispersions on the source while by-passing the CIVILIZING EFFECT of literally hundreds of years of Law by that country.... you know, the ones WE were established FROM.

------

Discussion will be encouraged. Distractions will be ignored.

88 posted on 04/29/2012 8:51:43 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

Previously in the court decision it was stated:

“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.”

Now there is Chief Justice Waite’s opinion in Minor v. Happersett which states: “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.”

Two points on Waite. 1. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers.... means English/American Common Law - Not Vattel’s interpretation. 2. NBC, as distinguished from ALIENS or FOREIGNERS. It is implicit in the structure that since aliens and foreigners are one and the same, NBC’s are different. Do you see the “child of citizens” modifier? It is implied that NBC and citizen are one and the same as opposed to aliens and foreigners.

There will never be a court in this land that will take your position. Get over it. You birthers are giving us conservatives a bad name. Lets put our focus on getting Obummer out of office by either proving he wasn’t born in HI and his BC is a forgery, or vote him out in the election. We don’t need your type of distractions that will never go anywhere.

Stop READING INTO what people say. Read the words. Unless you have the ESP of Kreskin, stay with the written word.


89 posted on 04/29/2012 9:10:26 AM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

You ‘complain’ you can’t find something, and when it’s shown, you ridicule.


I concede your point. I don’t mean to riducule. You found A word, a word that was not in the ORIGINAL translation of the book, now find an authority that states NBC in our Constitution stems from Vattel, after all, the one making an assertion must prove it. Take your time! And I can’t believe you still could respect a misogynist like Vattel.


90 posted on 04/29/2012 9:22:17 AM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist
now find an authority that states NBC in our Constitution stems from Vattel,

I've already shown it in post #81. George Tucker's annotated version of Blackstone's Commentaries was literally THE book for early American law, and his View of the Constitution which comes FROM that work was accepted as legal evidence by the US Supreme Court in the defense of the RKBA case District of Columbia vs. Heller.

Tucker specifically mentions Vattel.

[BTW – your link to a blog was a joke]

-----

AH! I recognize the tactic now.

You post like someone looking for an answer when all you really want is a response.

When that response comes [and particularly when that response is not in TOTAL agreement with yours] you offer no true rebuttal. You either jump up & down point and scream – HA HA!, like its some kind of proof or ask a question that's already been answered.

Then you repeat the cycle over and over again.

-----

You, sir are what I call a 'mental masturbater'.

And I have NO desire to hold whatever needs holding while you do it.

91 posted on 04/29/2012 10:10:08 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

I’ve already shown it in post #81.


You’ve shown nothing relating to this thread. (And I see you are reverting to ridicule).

Let’s take a look at what you referenced in Post 83. Your first reference, referring to The Law Of Nations has nothing to do with Vattel. It is a reference to Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book 4, Chapter 5 entitled Of Offenses Against the Laws of Nations. (http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/bla-405.htm). Interesting mistake on your part!

Your Tucker reference which mentions Vattel speaks not a word about NBC but some other topic not related to this thread.

What are you proving? Certainly nothing to support your contention that NBC has anything to do with Vattel’s interpretation.


92 posted on 04/29/2012 11:14:54 AM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

I’ve already shown it in post #81. George Tucker’s annotated version of Blackstone’s Commentaries was literally THE book for early American law, and his View of the Constitution which comes FROM that work was accepted as legal evidence by the US Supreme Court in the defense of the RKBA case District of Columbia vs. Heller.


If you had read your own reference you would see you are proving my point. Blackstone had a greater influence with our framers than anyone else.


93 posted on 04/29/2012 11:18:41 AM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

You, sir are what I call a ‘mental masturbater’.

And I have NO desire to hold whatever needs holding while you do it.


Nice talk! I see you’ve left the thread. If you want to play in the bigs mama, you need the right bat.

By you quoting (with great fanfare by the way) Blackstone as THE authority with our framers, you sent yourself back to the T-ball league. Nice chatting with you while it lasted, hope you learned something from the practice.


94 posted on 04/29/2012 12:53:13 PM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan; New Jersey Realist

The Constitution was written in 1787. The first translation of Vattel to use NBC was in 1797. And it was a poor translation of the word “indigene” - which happens to be an English word, as well as French.

That NBC is the equivalent of natural born subject is shown by the Massachusetts legislature:

“In February, 1785, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NICHOLAS ROUSSELET AND GEORGE SMITH.” in which it was declared that Nicholas Rousselet and George Smith “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”

In July, 1785, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING MICHAEL WALSH.” in which it was declared that Michael Walsh “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be a citizen of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of a natural born citizen.”

In July, 1786, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JONATHAN CURSON AND WILLIAM OLIVER” in which it was declared that Jonathan Curson and William Oliver “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born citizens.”

In March, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MARTIN AND OTHERS.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

In March, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING EDWARD WYER AND OTHERS THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken, to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

In October, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING BARTHOLOMY DE GREGOIRE, AND MARIA THERESA, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR CHILDREN.” in which it was declared that Bartholomy de Gregoire, and Maria Theresa, his wife, their children,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”

In November, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ALEXANDER MOORE, AND OTHERS, HEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Alexander Moore and others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the privileges, liberties, and immunities of natural born subjects.”

In June, 1788, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MENZIES, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Menzies and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born subjects.”

In November, 1788, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ELISHA BOURN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Elisha Bourn and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born Citizens.”

In February, 1789, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JAMES HUYMAN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that James Huyman and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the Liberties, Privileges and Immunities of natural born subjects.”

In June, 1789, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NATHANIEL SKINNER, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Nathaniel Skinner and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

In March, 1790, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN JARVIS, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED” in which it was declared that John Jarvis and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

Also in March, 1791, the Massachusetts legislature passed“AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN WHITE & OTHERS” in which it was declared that John White and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken, to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges, and immunities of natural born subjects.”

Notice one of the ratifying legislatures used NBS & NBC interchangeably. That doesn’t eave much doubt about how the ratifiers of the Constitution understood the term, does it?


95 posted on 04/29/2012 1:36:21 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (A conservative can't please a liberal unless he jumps in front of a bus or off of a cliff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
The Constitution was written in 1787.

And Ratified in 1789.

Look at your time-line. Almost everything prior to 1789 says 'subject' and everything after says citizen.

Until the Constitutional ratification process was complete, they were 'subjects'.

The States were accepting petitions from the people to be recognized as citizens so they could be in accordance with Article II Section I, clause 5

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution

Of course you can give the appearance that they're 'interchangeable'. Particularly since they aren't in chronological order.

96 posted on 04/29/2012 2:24:46 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

Massachusetts voted for ratification in Feb 1788 - well before a number of the citations.

And since they swapped back and forth between NBS & NBC, and the final ones cited were for NBS in March 1791, there really isn’t any doubt that one of the ratifying states considered the terms NBC & NBS to be interchangeable.

“Almost everything prior to 1789 says ‘subject’ and everything after says citizen.”

Actually:

In February, 1789, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JAMES HUYMAN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that James Huyman and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the Liberties, Privileges and Immunities of natural born subjects.”

In June, 1789, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NATHANIEL SKINNER, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Nathaniel Skinner and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

In March, 1790, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN JARVIS, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED” in which it was declared that John Jarvis and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

Also in March, 1791, the Massachusetts legislature passed“AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN WHITE & OTHERS” in which it was declared that John White and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken, to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges, and immunities of natural born subjects.”

Wrong, again........


97 posted on 04/29/2012 2:37:51 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (A conservative can't please a liberal unless he jumps in front of a bus or off of a cliff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist
Oh I should have added 'change the question to that list'

First, your complaint was 'natural born citizen' was nowhere to be found in Vattel. And I showed you.

THEN you complained it was only once, and demanded a direct connection. and I showed you.

THEN you complained that that connection wasn't specifically for that particular clause.

If that was they only evidence that would satisfy you, why be coy? Why not just say so?

Maybe...because you really weren't interested in an answer? Maybe you get your jollies moving the goalpost?

It doesn't matter, because even if that were presented, you wouldn't be convinced, you would find another complaint.

It's not in the original French, it's not translated correctly, etc., etc., etc.

If you think the Founders spoke words like:

That these are our grievances which we have thus laid before his majesty, with that freedom of language and sentiment which becomes a free people claiming their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.
Thomas Jefferson, Rights of British America, 1774

And still not see the correlation between them and the The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law [which is the title in the 1758 edition printed in 1797], then there never WILL be enough evidence for you.

Good day.

98 posted on 04/29/2012 2:40:14 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Wrong, again........ .

LOL! So the fact the petitions that could have began before ratification and still said 'subject' after ratification is some kind of 'proof' the words 'subject' and 'citizen' were interchangeable?

Oooooo-kay.

99 posted on 04/29/2012 3:01:11 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

““In February, 1785, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NICHOLAS ROUSSELET AND GEORGE SMITH.” in which it was declared that Nicholas Rousselet and George Smith “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”

Was 1785 before or after the Constitution was written, let alone ratified?

The POINT is that they used the terms interchangeably.

In July, 1786, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JONATHAN CURSON AND WILLIAM OLIVER” in which it was declared that Jonathan Curson and William Oliver “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born citizens.”

In March, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MARTIN AND OTHERS.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”


100 posted on 04/29/2012 3:19:20 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (A conservative can't please a liberal unless he jumps in front of a bus or off of a cliff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-120 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