BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen...

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama 's U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama's ... Full Story
American Lady

Danville, KY

#88922 Jul 3, 2012
December 8, 2008

Politico.com , in its article, "Supreme Court Rejects Obama Citizenship Case," LIED to the public BY OMISSION in its coverage of the treatment by the U.S. Supreme Court of the appeal brought by New Jersey attorney, Leo Donofrio, of a NJ federal district court "decision" regarding the attorney's contention that the actual definition of "Natural-born" disqualifed Barack Obama from being President of the United States. Donofrio's argument is that "natural-born" is defined as birth to two U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. Under such definition, Barack Obama junior could not, nor ever could, be considered "natural-born" because at his birth his Father held foreign citizenship, that of the United Kingdom (Kenya was under U.K. jurisdiction at the time of the birth of Barack Obama senior). Thus, Barack Obama, junior, held dual citizenship at birth, a condition rendering him ineligible to be President under Constitutional law.

From the Politico.com article:

"The court turned down a long-shot emergency appeal from a New Jersey man who claimed that Obama could not serve as president because he had dual nationality at birth. Since his mother was an American and his Kenyan father was a British subject, he failed to meet the constitutional standard of being a “natural born citizen,” argued Leo Donofrio of East Brunswick, N.J., in his appeal."

Politico followed this statement with the extraction:

"The court denied the request without providing an explanation, which is common practice."

Politico summarized Donofrio's argument fairly, but unfortunately reported disingenuously on the event of that day. The U.S. Supreme Court did NOT "turn down" Donofrio's appeal; they refused to hear it.

Trailing that misleading statement with the phrase, "The court denied the request ...", represents a literary tactic engineered to mislead the reader into believing that the U.S. Supreme Court had denied the appeal after considering the argument.

The "common practice" to which Politico refers is the practice of SCOTUS not sharing with the public the reason for not hearing a case; but framed as this statement was in Politco's article, the average reader is led down the path of believing that the U.S. Supreme Court had dismissed the lawsuit's argument and reasoning without comment. Especially is this true since the article's title, from the get-go, prepares the reader to expect to learn details on the Supreme Court's supposedly having rejected the argument and reasoning of the case.

The public from that day forward was lulled by corporate/government controlled media into discounting, even to the point of reviling, any further public discourse on the matter. Mainstream media feverishly embarked on the PsyOps mission to discredit the legitimate concern on the part of Constitutional Patriots and to disparage those who dared to pursue the truth as 'right-wing extremists' and 'kooks wearing tin-foil hats.'

Please take note!
NOT ONE eligibility lawsuit has ever been dismissed based on its MERITS!

http://truthliving.com/obamafraud.htm#politic...
American Lady

Danville, KY

#88923 Jul 3, 2012
So Obama as a British subject is perfectly qualified to preside over a British Crown Corporation.
No different than being elected president of Land Rover.

*_*

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#88924 Jul 3, 2012
Cancer on the pResidency wrote:
<quoted text>
All children, and a child, mean essentially the same thing in the context of the ruling, WoTARD!
Whether talking about a single child or all children, they must have citizen parents to be a Natural born citizen.
You must be devoid of common sense!
How many US citizen parents must all children have to have been born of citizen parents?
The answer is clearly TWO!
This remains a FACT that your post did not change.
Sorry, Tacky, but no court ever said they must have citizen parents to be natural born citizens.

Never happened.

It was never doubted that all children of citizen parents were born citizens. There is nothing there about a requirement.

UR making stuff up Tacky. You need to distinguish between fantasy and reality.

"[I]t was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also."

Nothing there about a requirement for two or even one citizen parent to be born a citizen (i.e., a natural born citizen).

The court in Minor even mentioned that children may be born citizens (i.e., natural born citizens) if born in the country without regard to parentage. This is clearly contrary to the imaginary birfoon fantasy parentage "requirement".

Ark was held to be a citizen because he was a natural born citizen per the Fourteenth Amendment in view of the common law standard of natural born citizen.

Illiterate birfoons think the Fourteenth Amendment must recite the words "natural born" in order for its necessary ramifications to become actualized. Fortunately, the judges of the United States and the members of Congress understand the meaning and ramifications of the 14th Amendment. Illiterate whining and moaning cannot change that fact.

A person born a citizen in the US has always been a natural born citizen. A person born a citizen in this country born a citizen under the 14th Amendment is a natural born citizen per jus soli doctrine. All persons born citizens in this country are "Fourteenth Amendment citizens" and are natural born citizens.

.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#88926 Jul 3, 2012
Ellen wrote:
<quoted text>
That is true. But the Wong Kim Ark case ALSO defined the meaning of Natural Born, saying that it came from the common law, and that it refers to the PLACE of birth (not the parents), and that every child born in the USA is Natural Born except for the children of foreign diplomats.
Here are its words:
"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.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."
Notice EVERY child. Notice that the court says that the same rule applied in England and in the colonies and in the early states and UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.
That is why Edwin Meese had this in his book:
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005)[Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
Ark was ruled to be a citizen because he was a natural born citizen and not naturalized. You are correct, the court made it clear that persons born in the US are natural born citizens according to jus soli doctrine which derives from common law.

Birfoons don't seem to understand the distinction between application of common law (which is not what the court did) versus construing and defining words in the Constitution in reference to the common law.“And the question fairly raised here is not whether there is a common law of the United States, but whether it is admissible, in construing and defining words used in the Constitution, to refer to the common law.” Brief for Appellee, at 7, US v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456 (1898)(No. 132). The court agreed with appellee, citing US v. Alabama and numerous other sources.
Ellen

Arlington, MA

#88927 Jul 3, 2012
American Lady wrote:
Why Barack Obama can never legally *ACT* as President of the United States
Since nearly the beginning of 2008, certain events have been unfolding, events that have gone nearly completely ignored by all mainstream media, but that constitute bona-fide, reportable, and ESSENTIAL NEWS. It is now apparent, sufficient for all to see without dispute, the extent to which our nation's "mainstream" news media has utterly failed Democracy. Regardless of the multi-dimensional outcome of this developing story, it is the news media that will be soundly indicted by this nation's citizenry.
This developing story is one for the history books. Picture the very worst-case scenario that could befall the political and social life of this nation, and by repurcussion the entire world, and you will probably think Abu Ghraib; bogus WMD; 9/11; the assassination of JFK. The scenario that you will not even imagine, and what may very well be materializing, is the complete disrepute of the popularly-elected Barack Obama, and the seemingly sudden derailing of that promise of the coming "Change" for the course of this nation, and by complicity the complete fall from grace of the Democratic Party.
This is not about political leanings, or about partisan politics. This is about the very real and present danger of a global socio-political/economic calamity resulting from what at first would seem to be the one very poor decision made by one man, Mr. Barack Obama, a decision that he has ALREADY made and ALREADY acted upon by virtue of resistance and inaction, a decision which perhaps he even made before he became a Senator of the state of Illinois.
What the mainstream media has not told you is that there is already a substantiated, incontrovertible reasoning why Barack Obama II is not, and can never be, a "Natural-born" citizen, and that there is a growing crescendo in the form of legal filings to compel Mr. Obama to produce an actual, certified, long-form vault copy of his original Birth Certificate, claimed to be filed with the State of Hawai'i.
The following is an outline of events from approximately mid-October, 2008, that provides context to the arrival at the ultimate point-of-conscious-awareness among the internet-public-at-large of the actual and most basic reasoning ...
... why Barack Obama is not eligible to assume the office of President of the United States.
http://truthliving.com/obamafraud.htm
Since THEN....many, many MORE!
Something WRONG.....somewhere!
Despite the length of the above crap, Obama has in fact shown his birth certificate--both short form and long form--and the officials in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed that it exists and that the facts on the published copy are accurate, and this is further confirmed by the Index Data and the birth notices.

The meaning of Natural Born Citizen, as the Wong Kim Ark case ruled, and as five state lawsuits and one federal lawsuit also have ruled, comes from the common law and refers to the PLACE of birth, not to the parents of a US-born citizen, but to the PLACE where she or he was born.
Ellen

Arlington, MA

#88928 Jul 3, 2012
American Lady wrote:
<quoted text>
And the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the PLACE of birth, not the parents, said dipchit
The common law is *gone.* The federal courts never applied the common law and even in the state courts it’s codified now.(Audio/Video:(US Supreme Court) Justice Scalia(sitting NOW speech, Nov 22, 2008)
It is not a question of applying the common law. The issue is the meaning of Natural Born Citizen. Does it come from Vattel or some natural law theory. Or, does it, like habeas corpus, and "no bill of attainder" come from the common law. The Wong Kim Ark ruling and historical research on the way that the term was used both say that it comes from the common law.

And what did the common law say? It said that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen refers to the PLACE of birth, not the parents, the place.
Ellen

Arlington, MA

#88929 Jul 3, 2012
Re: "You think that those Kenyans may have read Obama's bio too, where he proclaimed that he was born in Kenya and was raised in Indonesia and Hawaii?"

The guy who wrote Obama's bio had admitted to the mistake. The fact that he made that mistake does not indicate that Obama was one of the 21 people who came to the USA from Kenya in 1961 or that his mother went to Kenya or that he was born in Kenya.
American Lady

Danville, KY

#88930 Jul 3, 2012
Malihi’s opinion directly contradicts his own recent opinion denying Obama’s Motion to Dismiss, wherein Malihi relied exclusively on statutory construction. However, yesterday, Malihi held that the 14th Amendment had to be read “in tandem” with Article 2, Section 1.

But doing so would render the natural-born citizen clause to be inoperative, in that 14th Amendment citizenship, and nothing more, would be the requirement to be President. This would mean that the natural-born citizen clause is rendered superfluous. Here’s what Chief Justice Marshall said about this issue in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803):

“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.” Id. 174.(Emphasis added.)

And here’s what the U.S. Supreme Court held as to statutory construction in the seminal case on this issue, Morton v. Mancari:

“Where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment. See, e. g., Bulova Watch Co. v. United States, 365 U.S. 753, 758 (1961); Rodgers v. United States, 185 U.S. 83, 87 -89 (1902).

The courts are not at liberty to pick and choose among congressional enactments, and when two statutes are capable of co-existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective.“When there are two acts upon the same subject, the rule is to give effect to both if possible ... The intention of the legislature to repeal `must be clear and manifest.’” United States v. Borden Co., 308 U.S. 188, 198 (1939).” Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 550-551 (1974).

There is no “clearly expressed intention” to deem 14th Amendment citizens “natural born”. Those words were intentionally left out of the 14th Amendment. And Judge Malihi has simply overruled the U.S. Supreme Court by suggesting that the general citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment governs the specific requirement to be President in Article 2, Section 1.

Both clauses are not given separate effect by Malihi. His opinion holds that the 14th has the exact same effect as the natural-born citizen clause, while the 14th Amendment does not include the words “natural born Citizen”. Persons claiming citizenship under the 14th Amendment are deemed to be “citizens”.

Malihi has added the words “natural born” into the Amendment. This is absolutely forbidden,

according to Malihi’s own opinion in the Motion to dismiss, wherein he held:

“In the absence of words of limitation, words in a statute should be given their ordinary and everyday meaning.’ Six Flags Over Ga. v. Kull, 276 Ga. 210, 211 (2003)(citations and quotation marks omitted). Because there is no other ‘natural and reasonable construction’ of the statutory language, this Court is ‘not authorized either to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.’”(Emphasis added.)

Such lack of consistency, just weeks apart, from the same jurist… simply reeks. Now he’s putting words into the 14th Amendment, when just weeks before he said that was forbidden.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#88931 Jul 3, 2012
Poppo wrote:
<quoted text>
Could be low flyer, but I’m sure you agree it wasn’t the $10.6 trillion Bush left us with.
There is no "could be" poopoo. Again you have your head in the sand.

Remember, just keep blaming Bush and voting for Democrats and all will be right with the world..

What a moron..
Ellen

Arlington, MA

#88933 Jul 3, 2012
American Lady wrote:
Malihi’s opinion directly contradicts his own recent opinion denying Obama’s Motion to Dismiss, wherein Malihi relied exclusively on statutory construction. However, yesterday, Malihi held that the 14th Amendment had to be read “in tandem” with Article 2, Section 1.
But doing so would render the natural-born citizen clause to be inoperative, in that 14th Amendment citizenship, and nothing more, would be the requirement to be President. This would mean that the natural-born citizen clause is rendered superfluous. Here’s what Chief Justice Marshall said about this issue in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803):
“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.” Id. 174.(Emphasis added.)
And here’s what the U.S. Supreme Court held as to statutory construction in the seminal case on this issue, Morton v. Mancari:
“Where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment. See, e. g., Bulova Watch Co. v. United States, 365 U.S. 753, 758 (1961); Rodgers v. United States, 185 U.S. 83, 87 -89 (1902).
The courts are not at liberty to pick and choose among congressional enactments, and when two statutes are capable of co-existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective.“When there are two acts upon the same subject, the rule is to give effect to both if possible ... The intention of the legislature to repeal `must be clear and manifest.’” United States v. Borden Co., 308 U.S. 188, 198 (1939).” Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 550-551 (1974).
There is no “clearly expressed intention” to deem 14th Amendment citizens “natural born”. Those words were intentionally left out of the 14th Amendment. And Judge Malihi has simply overruled the U.S. Supreme Court by suggesting that the general citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment governs the specific requirement to be President in Article 2, Section 1.
Both clauses are not given separate effect by Malihi. His opinion holds that the 14th has the exact same effect as the natural-born citizen clause, while the 14th Amendment does not include the words “natural born Citizen”. Persons claiming citizenship under the 14th Amendment are deemed to be “citizens”.
Malihi has added the words “natural born” into the Amendment. This is absolutely forbidden,
according to Malihi’s own opinion in the Motion to dismiss, wherein he held:
“In the absence of words of limitation, words in a statute should be given their ordinary and everyday meaning.’ Six Flags Over Ga. v. Kull, 276 Ga. 210, 211 (2003)(citations and quotation marks omitted). Because there is no other ‘natural and reasonable construction’ of the statutory language, this Court is ‘not authorized either to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.’”(Emphasis added.)
Such lack of consistency, just weeks apart, from the same jurist… simply reeks. Now he’s putting words into the 14th Amendment, when just weeks before he said that was forbidden.
So appeal the ruling. Your side will probably lose. I agree with you that the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with Natural Born status, which was defined by the common law as referring to the place of birth. The 14th only affects the citizenship part of Natural Born Citizen. But the bottom line is that you will still lose because it is clear that the meaning of Natural Born refers to the place of birth, not the citizenship of the parents of a US-born citizen.
American Lady

Danville, KY

#88934 Jul 3, 2012
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.

Further Wong Kim Ark was not delcared a natural born citizen, merely a citizen of the U.S.

His natural born citizenship was not at issue before SCOTUS.

The American common-law defintion of natural born citizen was not changed by Ark or the 14th amendment.

Research Dr. David Ramsay, who was the historian of the founding of our country. He was also the acting President of the US, in Congress assembled.

THe precedent you are looking for is not Ark, but Minor (1875).

The holding of SCOTUS in Minor states that natural born is born in the US of parents who are citizens.

This holding has been cited in at least 25 other SCOTUS cases. It is established law, and has never been overturned.
American Lady

Danville, KY

#88935 Jul 3, 2012
For years it has been clear that Snopes.com , FactCheck.org , PolitiFact.com and Wikipedia.com are sources of misinformation, partisanship, and bias. Snopes is the worst. Wikipedia is about as biased, Politifact.com is a joke, and FactCheck.org has a personal agenda. These sites do not scrub the internet of good information but they do confuse and bury the truth. It is now so difficult to research online that many people have given up, including professional journalists.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#88936 Jul 3, 2012
American Lady wrote:
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.
Sorry, Tacky, at the time of adoption of the Constitution that was not law in this country, or England or France.

The notion that the standard of citizenship was according to the Law of Nations (International Law) was thoroughly argued and debunked in US v. Ark.

Your horse has been dead for over 100 years.
Ellen

Arlington, MA

#88937 Jul 3, 2012
American Lady wrote:
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.
Further Wong Kim Ark was not delcared a natural born citizen, merely a citizen of the U.S.
His natural born citizenship was not at issue before SCOTUS.
The American common-law defintion of natural born citizen was not changed by Ark or the 14th amendment.
Research Dr. David Ramsay, who was the historian of the founding of our country. He was also the acting President of the US, in Congress assembled.
THe precedent you are looking for is not Ark, but Minor (1875).
The holding of SCOTUS in Minor states that natural born is born in the US of parents who are citizens.
This holding has been cited in at least 25 other SCOTUS cases. It is established law, and has never been overturned.
Re: "This holding has been cited in at least 25 other SCOTUS cases. It is established law, and has never been overturned. "

Answer: The Minor vs Happersett case was cited, but the definition of Natural Born wasn't.

And, you know, IT DOESN'T SAY THAT TWO CITIZEN PARENTS ARE REQUIRED. Saying that it was never doubted that if you wore both suspenders and a belt would hold your pants up is not the same thing as saying: "Suspenders and a belt are required to hold your pants up." Certainly if you wear both you will hold your pants up, and certainly wearing both is better than wearing none. But both are not required, one will do. And in the Minor vs Happersett ruling it also does not say that both parents and birth in the country are required to be a NBC. It only says that if you have both of the two possibilities, you certainly are.
American Lady

Danville, KY

#88938 Jul 3, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, Tacky, at the time of adoption of the Constitution that was not law in this country, or England or France.
The notion that the standard of citizenship was according to the Law of Nations (International Law) was thoroughly argued and debunked in US v. Ark.
Your horse has been dead for over 100 years.
I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel.

It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations.

Accordingly that copy, which I kept,(

after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,)

has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.

Your manuscript "Idee sur le Gouvernement et la Royaute" is also well relished, and may, in time, have its effect.

I thank you, likewise, for the other smaller pieces, which accompanied Vattel.

...

we should be obliged to break off *all connexion with Britain,*

and declare ourselves an independent people,...

Letter FROM: Benjamin Franklin to To: Charles William Frederic Dumas

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-n...
American Lady

Danville, KY

#88939 Jul 3, 2012
Toodles....
(another way of saying "bye" for now)....;-)

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#88940 Jul 3, 2012
American Lady wrote:
THe precedent you are looking for is not Ark, but Minor (1875).
The holding of SCOTUS in Minor states that natural born is born in the US of parents who are citizens.
This holding has been cited in at least 25 other SCOTUS cases. It is established law, and has never been overturned.
Sorry, BirfoonLady, but that was not a holding of the court in Minor. It was but obiter dictum as it would not have mattered if Minor was natural born or naturalized. Either way she couldn't vote.

Secondly, the court expressly left open the question of whether children born in the US are also born citizens (natural born citizens), a question later addressed by the court in Ark.

It has never been doubted that persons born citizens in a country are natural born citizens. This is true of both common law and according to Vattel's Law of Nations. There is nothing to contradict this truth in Minor v. Happersett.

The instant Ark was declared a citizen it was evident to all concerned that he was a natural born citizen. Even the losers,(the US government), knew it meant he was a natural born citizen if born a citizen. Courts have recognized that children even of two alien parents are natural born citizens if born in the US.

“To hold that Wong Kim Ark is a natural-born citizen
within the ruling now quoted, is to ignore the fact that
at his birth he became a subject of China by reason of
the allegiance of his parents to the Chinese Emperor.”
Brief for Appellant, at 39, US v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S.
649, 18 S.Ct. 456 (1898)(No. 132).
rider

Ishpeming, MI

#88941 Jul 3, 2012
Those gun rigts advocates are there own worse enemys. Talk like this only gives me the feel that gun-control is important. Those anti-gun control advocates need to grow up for thier own good. Give a Lamb a Gun

Posted by Herman Cain on 01/24

Hello, I’m Herman Cain and they think we are STUPID!

I have eight guns and that’s not enough. That’s how my friend Joe the Plumber defines his 2nd amendment rights. It’s no secret that this administration is actively trying to strengthen gun control laws here in the United States, but they allow guns in the hands of drug smugglers which end up killing Americans. Even our Attorney General now admits there are more deaths tied to these guns in the future. But he never approved it… and knew nothing about it! That’s a pack of lies! And it needs to be stopped by right minded adults in this upcoming election. Did you ever think you would live to see the day when our government would purposely force the sell of guns to drug cartels in a foreign country. It sounds like the plot from a horror film but it’s not…it happened and it happened on Barack Obama and Eric Holder’s watch.

They say they were unaware of it. Do they think we are that stupid?? Did you vote for that in 2008? Did Barack Obama run for president on the promise of more guns for drug lords? There’s a reason for this despicable and outrageous scheme. You see, the Tea Party, myself, and other pro constitution Americans believe in the 2nd amendment and as Benjamin Franklin once said,“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well- armed lamb contesting the vote.”

Let’s give a lamb a gun.

We are not stupid!(very debatable statement)

This is Herman Cain
Ellen

Arlington, MA

#88942 Jul 3, 2012
American Lady wrote:
<quoted text>
I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel.
It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations.
Accordingly that copy, which I kept,(
after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,)
has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.
Your manuscript "Idee sur le Gouvernement et la Royaute" is also well relished, and may, in time, have its effect.
I thank you, likewise, for the other smaller pieces, which accompanied Vattel.
...
we should be obliged to break off *all connexion with Britain,*
and declare ourselves an independent people,...
Letter FROM: Benjamin Franklin to To: Charles William Frederic Dumas
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-n...
Yes the writers of the Constitution read Vattel. But guess what, they read a lot of other things too.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#88943 Jul 3, 2012
American Lady wrote:
<quoted text>
I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel.
It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations.
Accordingly that copy, which I kept,(
after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,)
has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.
He had a copy of Blackstone too. So what? That didn't change the common law understanding of "natural born" and its equivalence to the term "native born".

See the quote below[1]; it refers to "the only standard which then existed."

It was understood that there was no other "standard" which then existed at the time of adoption of the constitution. This was also noted by the USSC in Ark[2].

So get a life. Nobody cares if Franklin owned a copy of Vattel. It's irrelevant.
__________
[1]“And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President.‘No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,’ &c. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.”
Lynch v. Clarke, 3 NY Leg. Obs. 236, 246 (N.Y. Ch. 1844).

[2] "[B]ut at the time of the adoption of the constitution of the Unoted States in 1789, and long before, it would seem to have been the rule in Europe generally, as it certainly was in France, that as said by Pothiier,,'citizens, true and native-born citizens, are those who are born within the extent of the dominion of France,' and 'mere birth within the realm gives the rights of a native-born citizen, independently of the origin of the father or mother, and of their domicile'"
Pothier quoted in US v. Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 666 (1898).
wojar wrote:
Sorry, Tacky, at the time of adoption of the Constitution that was not law in this country, or England or France.
The notion that the standard of citizenship was according to the Law of Nations (International Law) was thoroughly argued and debunked in US v. Ark.

Your horse has been dead for over 100 years.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Body cameras for cops could be the biggest chan... 5 min barefoot2626 1,666
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 7 min Reverend Alan 3,124
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 9 min Katrina Roxx 294,762
Kendrick Johnson investigation: Federal grand j... 9 min STM 58
Who do you side with in Ferguson? 11 min crikey 10,020
Lovable 'Saved by the Bell' Actor Arrested on W... 12 min L Morales 3
Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions 13 min Reverend Alan 5,291
"The Interview" Opens to Sold-Out Crowds 17 min Lawrence Wolf 8
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 29 min RUSH10ME 1,156,186
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr Dogen 134,258
Official: US eyes dozens of Gitmo transfers 1 hr no shame 5
More from around the web