Orly Taitz filed Quo Warranto in Washington DC this week

American Grand Jury ^ | January 29, 2010

[Man50D]

Note from Orly Taitz on her website:

[Non-Sequitur]

Probably but Lamberth is as good as we've got.

That's what Birthers were saying about Judge Carter. Before he tossed Orly's case out.

[Non-Sequitur]

As a further insight to the thoughts of the Founding Fathers , the Constitutional provision cited also calls for punishment of offenses.

Where?

[Non-Sequitur]

I would assume this is a good thing. Won’t they find some technicality to dismiss it though?

Can't dismiss it if you don't have a judge.

[Non-Sequitur]

Apparently you're clueless to the fact the Bill of Rights contains powers granted to the people and that the Grand jury is mentioned only in the 5th Amendment purposely to give the only the people the power of the grand jury as a check and balance against a corrupt government.

So what you're saying is that every person convicted by a grand jury convened by the government was indicted illegally and should be released?

[Man50D]

The folks hawking Vattel’s book, “The Law of Nations” as the be all and end all of the U.S. Constitution, which it never has been, are latching on to this usage as “proof” the book is embedded in out Constitution.

The founding father's relied significantly on the Law of Nations, particularly the natural born citizenship clause. Vattel’s Law of Nations and the Founding Fathers

As for the fact that “Law of Nations” is spelled with capitals. Please. In that article alone, we see the following capitalized terms: “Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,” “Rule of Naturalization,” “Standard Weights and Measures,” “Coin of the United States,” “Post Offices and Post Roads,” “Progress of Science,” ‘Writings and Discoveries,” etc. etc.

Thank you for illustrating the reason all of them, including the Law of Nations, are capitalized is because they are all proper nouns! The proper noun with respect to the Laws of Nations is de Vattel's book!

[InterceptPoint]

That's what Birthers were saying about Judge Carter. Before he tossed Orly's case out.

I really haven't followed the Orly Birther stuff that close but, as I recall, Orly asked Carter to transfer her case to Lamberth. I assume she had a good reason for doing so and was apparently successful. Of course there could be more than one case here and I'm just confused. But it seems for sure that Orly does favor Judge Lamberth and he has given FISA court rulings in the past that we view here as favorable.

[Non-Sequitur]

I really haven't followed the Orly Birther stuff that close but, as I recall, Orly asked Carter to transfer her case to Lamberth.

She asked to transfer the case weeks after Judge Carter had dismissed it. At that point there was nothing to transfer, and is further evidence that when it comes to the law Orly Taitz is an idiot.

I assume she had a good reason for doing so and was apparently successful.

She had a very good reason - she'd lost. And she wasn't successful, this filing is an entirely different proceeding.

But it seems for sure that Orly does favor Judge Lamberth and he has given FISA court rulings in the past that we view here as favorable.

From what I know, Judge Lamberth is an excellent and highly qualified jurist. Which is why I don't expect this latest stunt of Orly's to be any more successful than her earlier ones.

[Non-Sequitur]

The founding father's relied significantly on the Law of Nations, particularly the natural born citizenship clause.

Vattel also wrote, "The establishment of religion by law, and its public exercise, are matters of state, and are necessarily under the jurisdiction of the political authority...If there be as yet no religion established by public authority, the nation should use the utmost care, in order to know and establish the best." If the founders were under Vattel's influence to the extent that you suggest then how did we dodge a national religion and wind up with the First Amendment?

[Man50D]

Vattel also wrote, "The establishment of religion by law, and its public exercise, are matters of state, and are necessarily under the jurisdiction of the political authority...If there be as yet no religion established by public authority, the nation should use the utmost care, in order to know and establish the best." If the founders were under Vattel's influence to the extent that you suggest then how did we dodge a national religion and wind up with the First Amendment?

de Vattel's § 14. Of the preservation and perfection of a nation.

"The preservation of a nation is found in what renders it capable of obtaining the end of civil society; and a nation is in a perfect state, when nothing necessary is wanting to arrive at that end. We know that the perfection of a thing consists, generally, in the perfect agreement of all its constituent parts to tend to the same end. A nation being a multitude of men united together in civil society — if in that multitude all conspire to attain the end proposed in forming a civil society, the nation is perfect; and it is more or less so, according as it approaches more or less to that perfect agreement. In the same manner its external state will be more or less perfect, according as it concurs with the interior perfection of the nation."

B§ 15. What is the end of civil society.

The end or object of civil society is to procure for the citizens whatever they stand in need of for the necessities, the conveniences, the accommodation of life, and, in general, whatever constitutes happiness, — with the peaceful possession of property, a method of obtaining justice with security, and, finally, a mutual defence against all external violence.

The founding father's were in perfect agreement the First Amendment was necessary as they recognized freedom of speech was a fundamental principle to ensure the happiness they sought therefore based on the above passages they were heeding de Vattel's writings in with Law of Nations.

[Non-Sequitur]

The founding father's were in perfect agreement the First Amendment was necessary as they recognized freedom of speech was a fundamental principle to ensure the happiness they sought therefore based on the above passages they were heeding de Vattel's writings in with Law of Nations.

Freedom of speech, yes. Freedom of the press, yes. But why go against Vattel on freedom of religion? If they were totally under his sway and all?

[Man50D]

Freedom of speech, yes. Freedom of the press, yes. But why go against Vattel on freedom of religion? If they were totally under his sway and all?

How could they not violate the ciolate the passage you cite without violating the two sections I cite? If there is any contradiction it was with de Vattel himself writing sections with conflicting principles. They could not have possibly achieved the happiness they sought knowing they never would have been in perfect agreement to implement a national religion. That would have violated the two sections I cited in my previous post. de Vattel created the situation where the founding fathers could not help but violate one section to accommodate the other two sections.

[noinfringers]

Article I Section 8 Congresional obligation #9: “ To define and PUNISH .........Offenses against the Law of Nations”.The Law of Nations is embeded in the Constitution as much as any other part. Some have attempted to shortfall the Law of Nations as some general topic for discussion. However. I was taught in grade school,prior to WWII, that when addressing specific books e.g. Alice in Wonderland you capitalized. This is what the Founding Fathers as men of law and writings did with th Law of Nations.

[Non-Sequitur]

However. I was taught in grade school,prior to WWII, that when addressing specific books e.g. Alice in Wonderland you capitalized. This is what the Founding Fathers as men of law and writings did with th Law of Nations.

Then it would have been "to define and punish...offenses against The Law of Nations...", since the official title of Vattel's book is "The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns". But the Constitution does not capitalize the first word in what you claim is a reference to the title of Vattel's book, so obviously the founders were not referring to a specific book but instead to the generic international law of nations.

[ncfool]

What was this Houston Texas newspaper trying to tell us back in June 2008 when it ran this masthead on their site?



Why during the election did this web site owner feel threatened enough to immediately pull the web site down frm the internet?

[tired_old_conservative]

Yes. “Law of Nations” was indeed a concept that could be considered a proper noun long before Vattel ever wrote his book.

[tired_old_conservative]

“Apparently you're clueless to the fact the Bill of Rights contains powers granted to the people and that the Grand jury is mentioned only in the 5th Amendment purposely to give the only the people the power of the grand jury as a check and balance against a corrupt government.”

I am relatively clueless to the deranged workings of your overactive imagination. Please do let me know when one of your clubhouse fantasy cases gets anywhere.

And yes. This deranged nonsense does posit that Federal Grand juries are illegitimate. The natural corollary is that anyone ever indicted by one must be re-presented by a roving band of citizen lunatics or set free.

[noinfringers]

First we need to ascertain that we are talking to the same thing in the Constitution. My copy of the Constitution capitalizes the word “To”(properly so as an independant and specific expression) and the word “Offenses” is also capitalized( for emphasis I would think). Now as to your take on the words “ Law of Nations “. My copy of the Constitution has it also capitalized as such: and I note in your titleing there is the little word “or”. It appears the Founding Fathers used just the first option for the content of the Treatise. The Court(s) might
decide to rule on if the little word “or” is substantive to the Founding Fathers choice of wording as to full content including definition of a natural born citizen. I would think it would take a legal ten foot pole to do so.

[LorenC]

“Law of Nations” was indeed a concept that could be considered a proper noun long before Vattel ever wrote his book.

Exactly. Here is one example, from 1694. It even uses the capital letters.

Here is another, from 1704. Also with capital letters.