Posted on 05/16/2012 10:26:43 AM PDT by bestintxas
The video starts out with some content from obamasnippets.com, which, of course is contrived. And yet, there seems to be a synthetic truth about what the president says. Is he "natural born" according to the Constitution? No. The requirement is that BOTH parents need to be U. S. Citizens. Two U. S. Citizen
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
So what exactly was the Framers’ motivation in desiring foreigners to spawn future POTUSs? What made them think that was such a good idea/the best way to preserve and protect the Republic?
You strain... and produce a gnat. Obama’s POSTED BC is a fraud/forgery on its face. So, if what you say is true, explain the flying circus to produce a pretend BC from Hawaii. Obama is a fraud, his life is a fraud, and his history is a mystery... on purpose.
His father died when he was about two years old. His step-father, Samuel Shoemaker was a loyalist in Philadelphia. Rawle was 17 years old when the Revolution started. He went with his step-father to New York in 1778. Where he began to study law. In 1781, he went to London to study law at the Middle Temple. The Middle Temple was where several signers of the Constitution also studied law.
After the war, William Rawle was offered compensation for his stepfather's property that was confiscated by the US government. He turned the money down saying,
"I do not think myself entitled by anything I have done to ask for and receive that allowance from the government, which ought only to be extended to the loyalist, who has sacrificed his fortune in support of his sovereign , and who is therefore entitled on the plainest principles of reason to a recompense for it."
In 1782, he wrote to his mother his intentions to return to the United States,
"I doubt not, you will approve of my intention of returning to Philadelphia, and submitting to that authority which is there established. Though the step may be in some degree humiliating, yet I have done nothing to fear, as I have nothing to charge myself with. I have in no one instance taken a decisive part on either side: unless that voyage to New York, which was the effect of filial duty, should be urged as a crime.”
He went to Paris where Franklin was the United States Minister and received a passport handwritten by Franklin.
His treatise, "A View of the Constitution of the United States" was widely cited by Justice Story in his "Commentaries on the Constitution" including Rawle's description of the residency requirement for the Presidency.
Rawle's treatise is routinely cited for his support of the Second Amendment right to bear arms. In fact, Justice Scalia in the majority opinion in Heller v. District of Columbia, wrote,
"In 1825, William Rawle, a prominent lawyer who had been a member of the Pennsylvania Assembly that ratified the Bill of Rights, published an influential treatise, which analyzed the Second Amendment as follows:
“The first [principle] is a declaration that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent… .
“The corollary, from the first position is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
“The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.” Rawle 121–122.20
"Like Tucker, Rawle regarded the English game laws as violating the right codified in the Second Amendment . See id., 122–123. Rawle clearly differentiated between the people’s right to bear arms and their service in a militia: “In a people permitted and accustomed to bear arms, we have the rudiments of a militia, which properly consists of armed citizens, divided into military bands, and instructed at least in part, in the use of arms for the purposes of war.” Id., at 140. Rawle further said that the Second Amendment right ought not “be abused to the disturbance of the public peace,” such as by assembling with other armed individuals “for an unlawful purpose”—statements that make no sense if the right does not extend to any individual purpose." Heller v. D.C. 478 F. 3d 370
“Jay often quoted Vattel, author of The Law of Nations, that defined natural born citizens as those born of two citizens of a country.”
de Vattel merely stated that requirement for Switzerland, and noted other countries held different definitions.
Jay’s advice to Washington was not acted upon.
Foreigners don’t write US laws, especially dead Swiss citizens, writing in French, before the US revolution.
The preponderance of scholarly legal opinions in the US today is that Native Born equals Natural Born.
ie two types of citizenship, at birth and naturalized.
This equivalence is not necessarily true. The Second Amendment was widely discussed and was very significant in terms of importance to everyone involved. Many points in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers deal explicitly with the function and attributes of the Second Amendment.
In Contrast, the topic of "natural born citizen" was very lightly discussed, if at all. Those who were prominent during the buildup to the Revolution had already read "Droit des Gens" and were familiar with this new blueprint for a Free Republic, while at this time William Rawles was as you pointed out, just beginning to study law. Doubtlessly his British Loyalist (Step)Father was unlikely to have a copy of "Droit des Gens" (Seditionist Literature) lying around for him to peruse.
Going to London to study law meant that he would only be exposed to the Monarchical based understanding of "natural born subject" and therefore made it unlikely that his understanding of this little discussed aspect of U.S. Constitutional law would ever be corrected.
My point stands. Based on his training and experience, he was a poor choice upon which to rely for understanding of the correct meaning of the Article II term "Natural Born Citizen."
As I have pointed out, Others (Justice Washington and Justice Story in the Case of the Venus) who are more qualified in their understanding of American Law, explicitly contradict William Rawles opinion on this matter.
My Two Supreme Court Justices Beat your District Attorney. :)
No, but obviously the legal and moral philosophies of foreigners had an influence upon the crafting of the Constitution. It didn't just spring out of the pure imaginations of the Founders. The idea of the Separation of Powers was borrowed from Montesquieu, for example.
And I’m not saying that foreign law or philosphies of today or any time should be used in INTERPRETING the Constitution. Interpretation should spring solely from what is written in the Constitution based on the intent of those that wrote it.
You’re right. He did just admit that that online birth certificate is false. I guess it’s hard to keep track of one’s lies. They just don’t stick in one’s mind like the truth does.
DiogenesLamp: “And your point being that if he was correct regarding his writings on the Second Amendment he is therefore correct in his writings regarding “natural born” citizenship. “
No, my point is that Rawle was considered a Constitutional scholar.
Justice Story said this about Rawle’s explanation of the executive power of pardon,
“Mr. Rawle’s Remarks upon this subject are peculiarly valuable, from their accuracy, philosophical spirit, and clearness of statement.”
DiogenesLamp: “Doubtlessly his British Loyalist (Step)Father was unlikely to have a copy of “Droit des Gens” (Seditionist Literature) lying around for him to peruse.”
Not sure why you say that “Droit des Gens” was considered “Seditionist Literature”.
England was bound by the Law of Nations and said as much in a number of treaties that pre-date Vattel’s work.
King George II is reported to have complained that his Foreign Secretary William Pitt and Secretary of State Lord Richard Temple had never open Vattel.
Vattel was cited in the 1774 case of Campbell v. Hall.
Mr. MacDonald, “For the opinion of Vattel, a learned modern writer on the law of nations, was cited on that side: and, as this question seems rather to belong to the law of nations than to the municipal law of England; such an authority ought not to be disregarded. Vattel’s work is writ in French: but I have an English translation of it, in which the passage relating to this subject is expressed in these words. ” It is asked, to whom the conquest belongs; to the prince, who made it, or to the state? This question ought never to have been heard of. …”
Vattel was also cited in Parlimentary debates in 1781.
“[Sir Edmund Burke] quoted Vattel as being the latest and best, and whose testimony he preferred; because, being a modern writer, he expressed the sense of the day in which we live.”
So there is no reason to expect that the Vattel’s “Droit des Gens” was not part of a British legal education.
the latter will spark such riots that we need to be prepared.
I just bought another 1,000 rds.
Prepare yourself. I live inner city where it will be worse.
the latter will spark such riots that we need to be prepared.
I just bought another 1,000 rds.
Prepare yourself. I live inner city where it will be worse.
Feel free to list all the good things Obama has done, to prove that persons w divided loyalties can be just as faithful and committed to the USA as persons w two citizen parents. In fact, by all means list all the things Obama has done that prove his undivided allegiance to the USA. Using him as the model, demonstrate how he proves the wisdom of the Framers, in opening the WH up to people w divided/foreign loyalties. Use as many words as it takes. Make the strongest case you can.
Surely you can do this simple thing, 4Z. After all, it's not academic; you don't have to use your imagination. Your soil-man is in the WH. [Or IS he??? Obama himself claims he was born in Kenya. Hmm. What a tricky guy he is, that joker Little Barry.] So using his overall activities over the past 3+ years, argue your case. If you can't do it, then lets admit the OBVIOUS. The Framers didn't want people w divided loyalties Anywhere Near the Highest Office of the USA, period.
Which is it, 4Z??? A or B? Give it your best shot. Or say nothing, and forfeit the argument. The choice is up to you.
[It will be interesting, DL, to see what 4Z says. To my knowledge, no Obot has been asked to specifically delineate the particular ways in which Obama proves that dirt is what the Framers intended, w their NBC reference. The idea that the Framers had a ‘ya’ll come’ attitude toward the children of foreign enemies of the Republic, providing they could obtain a US BC [forged or authentic, who cares, right?] is so absurd on its face, I can't imagine what 4Z can say. It's like arguing the Framers didn't want the Republic to last, but actually ***wanted*** it trashed the first time a foreigner's kid could make it into the Oval Office. Seems the only arguments in favor come from the barking Moonbat contingent. We shall see.]
What’s the matter, 4Z? Can’t answer my questions w’out giving yourself away as a raging Moonbat? Otherwise, why the silence? The questions were and are immanently simple, reasonable and, I must say, blindingly obvious. If the Framers wanted to open the highest office in the land up to the children of foreigner enemies (providing they managed to give birth on US soil) they must have had a reason/reasons. Why would they believe persons of divided loyalty should occupy the Republic’s highest office? What benefit did they see in people like Obama taking the helm and seeking to “fundamentally change” the Republic?
Feel free to list all the good things Obama has done, to prove that persons w divided loyalties can be just as faithful and committed to the USA as persons w two citizen parents. In fact, by all means list all the things Obama has done that prove his undivided allegiance to the USA. Using him as the model, demonstrate how he proves the wisdom of the Framers, in opening the WH up to people w divided/foreign loyalties. Use as many words as it takes. Make the strongest case you can.
Surely you can do this simple thing, 4Z. After all, it’s not academic; you don’t have to use your imagination. Your soil-man is in the WH. [Or IS he??? Obama himself claims he was born in Kenya. Hmm. What a tricky guy he is, that joker Little Barry.] So using his overall activities over the past 3+ years, argue your case. If you can’t do it, then lets admit the OBVIOUS. The Framers didn’t want people w divided loyalties Anywhere Near the Highest Office of the USA, period.
Which is it, 4Z??? A or B? Give it your best shot. Or say nothing, and forfeit the argument. The choice is up to you.
[It will be interesting, DL, to see what 4Z says. To my knowledge, no Obot has been asked to specifically delineate the particular ways in which Obama proves that dirt is what the Framers intended, w their NBC reference. The idea that the Framers had a ‘ya’ll come’ attitude toward the children of foreign enemies of the Republic, providing they could obtain a US BC [forged or authentic, who cares, right?] is so absurd on its face, I can’t imagine what 4Z can say. It’s like arguing the Framers didn’t want the Republic to last, but actually ***wanted*** it trashed the first time a foreigner’s kid could make it into the Oval Office. Seems the only arguments in favor come from the barking Moonbat contingent. We shall see.]
Justice Story said this about Rawle’s explanation of the executive power of pardon,
“Mr. Rawle’s Remarks upon this subject are peculiarly valuable, from their accuracy, philosophical spirit, and clearness of statement.”
Yet you are missing my point. Just because a man can be quite correct about heavily scrutinized issues, does not mean he is right about an issue that had precious little discussion, especially when he is trained to a contrary position from the Schooling he received in a Nation which uses a system we rejected. (Monarchy/Subject)
Not sure why you say that “Droit des Gens” was considered “Seditionist Literature”.
It postulates the theoretical (at the time) existence of a Republican form of government which does not have a King. I would have thought that such a thing would be greatly objectionable to those who owe their allegiance to a Monarchical form of government, but apparently (based on the information you showed me) the book was not so objectionable to the British.
It HAS been the topic of much discussion on this website that the British Translations intentionally rendered "Les naturels, ou indigenes" incorrectly, and that this was not corrected until 1797, so there is that to consider as well. The founders read the book in it's original French, while it is quite likely that Rawle would have seen it as an English Translation with it's incorrect reference.
My point still stands. Both Justice Washington and Justice Story explicitly cite Vattel (Justice Story going so far as to repeat the exact section of Vattel on citizenship) as their basis for deciding the qualifications for citizenship.
Well, I guess we’ll just have to wait and see. Maybe Mr. Apuzzo’s New Jersey appeal will produce answers for some of these issues.
Have a good weekend.
Hopefully. One of the things about this issue that I have speculated upon is whether the founders themselves were even on the same page regarding the meaning of "natural born citizen." Based on some of the evidence I've seen, it is apparent that some of them were obviously invoking the Vattel definition, while others may have been using the English Common law definition. If both sides assumed the other understood the term the way they did, they would have simply passed it without controversy (which is what happened) but they would have still maintained a very different understanding of what the Article meant.
That could explain some of the confusion on this issue.
Have a good weekend.
And you too.
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.