We’re All Racists Now, But Barack Obama is Still Not a “Natural Born Citizen”

As I mentioned on last Sunday’s show, the aspect of the Zimmerman verdict that impressed me most was the stunning contrast between the common sense and sober, determined actions of a jury who seriously deliberated, cognizant of their enormous responsibility, and delivered a verdict, and the behavior of allegedly learned custodians of our laws and Constitution, like the repellant State Attorney Angela Corey, whose office withheld exculpatory evidence from George Zimmerman’s defense, and fired the whistleblower who tried to stop it, and the buffoonish prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda, who embarrassed himself with a cringe-inducing screech fest that he somehow thought was an appropriate closing argument, and made a horse’s hind end of himself on ABC News yesterday by sneeringly suggesting that we should draw a negative inference from George Zimmerman’s decision not to take the stand. In an equally disgusting display of arrogance and contempt for the rule of law in general, and the Zimmerman jury specifically, Ms. Corey, asked to identify George Zimmerman in one word, replied “Murderer.” These prosecutors and the governor who appointed them acted in the interest of political expediency, not justice, and they should all be ashamed for their involvement in this disgusting circus. The jurors, with their respect for the rule of law, restored my faith in our country, at least temporarily. Everything else about this case was lawlessness and darkness.

Meanwhile, in the U.S. Senate the cadaverous Majority Leader Harry Reid, given no choice by mean, obstructionist Republicans, was threatening to blow up the filibuster by changing Senate rules so that several new members of Obama’s Marxist cabal could be installed in office without opposition. Never mind that it takes 67 votes to change Senate rules. Never mind that in 2005, Reid and even Obama himself had deplored Republicans’ threats to change Senate rules when democrats decided to filibuster Pres. Bush’s judicial nominees. Barack Obama is actually the only sitting president in American history who has voted to filibuster a judicial nomination. The unprecedented use of the filibuster against judicial nominees was the brainchild of Lawrence Tribe, Cass Sunstein and Marcia Greenberg. Who are they? The late Robert Bork, a brilliant legal mind if there ever was one, and one who should know since he inspired the Left’s original efforts to disrupt the process of confirming judges, wrote about it here:

Forty-two of the Senate’s 50 Democrats recently attended a private retreat where they heard a panel, composed of Harvard law professor Laurence H. Tribe, University of Chicago law professor Cass M. Sunstein, and Marcia R. Greenberger, co-director of the National Women’s Law Center, urge them to oppose Mr. Bush’s judicial nominees on the basis that they are conservative. The New York Times reported that one attendee said of the panel: “They said it was important for the Senate to change the ground rules and there was no obligation to confirm someone just because they are scholarly or erudite.” Political correctness is apparently the new standard to which nominees are to be held.

Early this afternoon, after the “nuclear option” was avoided, several democrats took to the Senate floor to lament what they describe as the explosion in use of the filibuster to “obstruct” what the Dear Reader wants to do. And whose fault is that? The democrats started this whole filibuster business because the Left believes that the ends justify the means. They schemed with liberal advocates of judicial activism to “change the ground rules” established by the Constitution. They don’t want the rules to apply to them when they’re trying to “remake” (read destroy) America, but they scream bloody murder when the other side adopts their lawless approach.

So how did we get here? Isn’t it time to connect some dots? It’s simple. An initial act of lawlessness that started a chain of events that brought us to where we are today. Barack Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen,” and as such he has no business occupying the Oval Office. The fact that a “community organizer,” which is a euphemism for one who has contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law, could get elected in the first place is a credit to the Left’s success at dumbing down the population. If we had any doubts about whether he held those views, he removed them with his statements about the Constitution being a document of “negative rights.” Ironically, the drafters of our precious Constitution tried to protect us from the likes of Barack Obama with Article II, never imagining a populace so ignorant that they would disregard its provisions. All of the lawlessness that we have noted here, herehere andhere is the direct result of that initial act of lawlessness. Lawlessness begets more lawlessness. The result is the Chicago on the Potomac.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Politics, Pop Culture, the Hottest Issues of the Day, and Your calls. The Teri O’Brien Show, featuring America’s Original Conservative Warrior Princess, Live and in color, Sundays 4-6 pm Central time  athttp://www.blogtalkradio.com/Teri-OBrien. Daring to Commit Common Sense, Fearlessly, and More Important, Cheerfully, in the Age of Obama.

Make My Day: Text “FAN TOBCWP” to 32665

Can’t listen live? Download it from iTunes and listen on demand. 

As one listener wrote “one of the most insightful and entertaining pundits in America. Also, her voice is magical.”

Serious Ideas, Irresistible Entertainment. Warning: listeners may become hopelessly addicted.

 

30 comments

  1. Obama, having been born in Hawaii (as shown by his birth certificate, and the confirmation of the officials of both parties in Hawaii, and the Index Data and the birth notices and by the fact that birther sites have not even shown that Obama’s mother had a passport in 1961, is a Natural Born Citizen. Every child born on US soil is a Natural Born US Citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats.

    • Hi Ellen, thanks for your comment. I disagree with you about the meaning of “natural born citizen” in Article II. This phrase is used in only one place in the Constitution, and based on legal commentaries at the the time of the Founders (Vattel) and the Minor v. Happersett case, I believe it means the child of 2 American citizens at the time of that child’s birth. So unless Frank Marshall Davis was Barack Obama’s biological father, which I concede is a possibility, if Barack Obama Sr is his dad, it’s not possible for B. Hussein to be an Art II NBC.

      • The writers of the Constitution did not use Vattel, who is not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers, and who recommended some things that the US Constitution did not adopt—such as that every country should have a state religion. IF they had used Vattel, they would actually have had to have translated his French word “indignes” themselves—since that was the word used in all translations of Vattel until ten years after the Constitution was written, and if they had translated “indigines” as Natural Born Citizen and used that instead of Natural Born from the common law (which was, duh, far more common), then THEY WOULD HAVE TOLD US—and they didn’t.

        • Re Minor v. Happersett. It does not say what you think it says:

          http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012

          And the Wong Kim Ark case was after the Minor v. Happersett case, so if it really had been a ruling (and it wasn’t), the Wong Kim Ark case would have overturned it.

          And the Wong Kim Ark case said:

          “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.”

          That quite clearly says that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law (“by the law of England for the last three centuries”)—hence, not from Vattel. And it says that the same rule applied in England and in the American colonies and in the early states AND UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

          And it says that the rule is that every child born on US soil except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born Citizen.

          Disagree? Well TEN appeals courts on the issue of eligibility (nine for Obama one for McCain) have all quoted the Wong Kim Ark ruling and not one used the MInor v. Happersett ruling. (Indeed, one of the ten actually said that it was irrelevant.) No court, appeals court or the Supreme Court, has ever said that two citizen parents—or even one—is required to be a Natural Born Citizen. And that is why not a single elector changed her or his vote to vote against Obama either in 2008 or 2012. And that is why not a single member of Congress voted not to confirm, and that is why that RINO, the Chief Justice of the USA swore Obama in several times after each election.

          • Kim Wong Ark is not on point to Obama’s situation, but it has created a great deal of confusion. The passage you cite about the “laws of England” is what we lawyers call “dicta,”; that is, it commentary and discussion the Court includes in the opinion to support its opinion, but it is not the holding of the case. KWA was a case about citizenship under the 14th amendment, and it resolved “the single question(emphasis mine)stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States.” So, even though his parents were subject to the jurisdiction of China (remember the 14th amendment is all about a person being under the jurisdiction of the United States), because of being born in California, KWA was a “citizen,” of the United States, which is different from being an Article II “natural born citizen,” who I believe the Founders intended to be the child of 2 American citizens.

            A case resolving the issue of citizenship under the 14th amendment doesn’t address the issue of Obama’s eligibility. The issue is what is a “Natural Born Citizen,” a phrase used in the Constitution in one, and only one place, Article II.

            Just for fun, though, I can cite another portion of KMA’s very extensive discussion (dicta), in which the Court, citing a New Jersey case, also resolving an issue of citizenship pursuant to the 14th amendment, stated “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.” Now, read that passage. It’s saying that the person born to non-citizens on American soil is a citizen, just like the natural born child, as in these are two different things. The “natural born child” is the one born to American citizens, but the child born to aliens is also a “citizen.” I concede that if he was in fact born in Hawaii, something still unclear, Barack Obama is an American citizen just like Kim Wong Ark.

            Obama’s case has never been resolved by the Supreme Court; that is, whether a child born of an American citizen and an alien is an Article II “natural born citizen.” That sort of question is exactly the sort of thing the Court exists to resolve, which brings me to your last point.

            As you know, under our system of jurisprudence, courts don’t make pronouncements or decide questions not before them, and they have not decided this issue, so the fact that “[n]o court, appeals court or the Supreme Court, has ever said that two citizen parents—or even one—is required to be a Natural Born Citizen” doesn’t mean a thing. Courts are loathe to take up the issue because they believe it’s a political question, and at the end of the day, that’s probably the case. If the people of the United States, are so dumbed down by the Left’s century-long project to do just that, that they ignore the system wisely put in place by the Founders, and decide to elect an ineligible person, which I believe they did, we get what we deserve. And so we have. Every lawless act that we have seen from the Obama administration is the fruit of one poisonous tree, his initial lawless installation.

            Unless you have spoken to every elector who cast a ballot in 2008 and 2012, and perhaps you have, I think it’s a tad presumptuous for you to assert that they agree with you on this issue. Please tell us if you have. That would be a very interesting bit of information.

            No Congress weasel is going to vote to overturn a presidential election. I don’t care if the majority of people voted for a stuffed animal to be president. In that case, they would line up to rush before the cameras to say what a great job that it would do, and how eager they are to work with it. Chief Justice Roberts is a committed believer in the “political question” doctrine, which is one of the ways that courts should avoid getting involved in issues if they possibly can. That’s one of the things he meant when he wrote about the “restraints that make men free.” He would probably try to swear the stuffed animal into office, although that might be difficult.

            We’re free to elect that afore-mentioned stuffed animal, and at the end of the day, we probably would have been better off doing so.

          • You say that Wong Kim Ark is dicta.

            Well simply on the subject of eligibility there have been TEN appeals court cases that referred to it, and not one to Minor V. Happersett (in fact, one said that Minor v. Happersett does not apply—and it doesn’t, it never said that two citizen parents are REQUIRED).

            One of those ten appeals court cases was appealed to the current US Supreme Court, which turned down the appeal. That means that it left the ruling of that court, and the other nine, that the Wong Kim Ark decision is the one that applies STANDING.

            Here are some of the rulings:

            Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency…”

            Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

            Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”

            Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”

            Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.”

            Voeltz v. Obama (2nd suit Florida 2012) ruling: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

            Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”

            Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”

            Paige v. Obama et al. (Vermont 2012) ruling: “While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase—–”The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”—–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. This far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.”

            Fair v. Obama (Maryland 2012) ruling: The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is thus firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion [US v Wong], and as this court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case. “

            Notice how many mention the Wong Kim Ark ruling? They are justices and they know what “dicta” is a lot better than you, and they do not consider that part of the Wong Kim Ark ruling to be “dicta.”

            Moreover, the historical record shows that the American lawyers and scholars at the time that the Constitution was written knew that Natural Born came from the common law (One reason being that nobody on the Constitutional Convention told them that it came from Vattel or that it was a change from the old definition or that parents were involved). And here are two examples from men who knew the writers of the Constitution:

            “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

            (Notice that the above refers to the place of birth “born in the state,” not to parents. In other words it follows the common law, not Vattel.)

            And:

            “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

            And Rawle was friends with both Washington and Franklin. Getting back to the fundamentals. They are simple. If the writers of the Constitution had intended to switch the meaning of Natural Born from the place of birth to parents, THEY WOULD HAVE TOLD US.

          • I never said Kim Wong Ark was dicta. I said that the part you cited was dicta, as was the part I cited. I don’t know if you have any legal training, but even if you have, you have forgotten that “dicta” means anything other than the actual holding. The holding in KWA was what I stated before regarding citizenship under the 14th amendment. Not on point with BHO’s situation.

            As I said the Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on BHO’s situation, nor will they, so it’s still an open question, one on which we obviously disagree. All the courts you cite are avoiding the question as they are wont to do for the reasons I stated. The bottom line is that it is an open question.

            I believe that the drafters of the Constitution felt that they were being clear by using the phrase “natural born citizen” in only one place, Article II. It was a phrase well-understood at the time, and later, at the time of KWA, as you can see from the dicta that I cited in my previous comment.

            This is an issue that matters only to people like me with unyielding devotion to the Constitution, which are a dwindling number thanks to the dumbing down of America.

            I appreciate your comments, though, very much.

          • You don’t deny that Kim Wong Ark was decided based on 14th amendment and not Article II, do you?

          • Re “dicta.” The part of the Wong Kim Ark ruling that you call “dicta” is precisely the part of the Wong Kim Ark ruling that all the courts are citing. Meaning it is not Dicta.

            The Wong Kim Ark case was a citizenship case, not an eligibility case, so its bottom line was that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen, based on the 14th Amendment. But the part about Natural Born is considered part of the REASONING of the case, and BTW, there are a lot of other references to the common law and Natural Born in the Wong Kim Ark decision. I only cited the one that made it absolutely clear, but there are other quotations in the ruling that were pointing in the same direction. For example:

            “By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.”

            That just says “subject,” not NBC, but you can see that the status of citizenship relates to the place of birth, not the parents.

            And:

            “The doctrine of the common law is that every man born within its jurisdiction is a subject of the sovereign of the country where he is born, and allegiance is not personal to the sovereign in the extent that has been contended for; it is due to him in his political capacity of sovereign of the territory where the person owing the allegiance as born.”

            And:

            “II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection.”

            You see that it is part of the REASONING of the case, not dicta.

            and:

            ” Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.”

            Only the place of birth is mentioned as affecting Natural Born status.

            Now, perhaps you are thinking “that refers to ‘subjects,’ the people of the USA are ‘citizens.’

            But the ruling says:

            ” The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government.”

            Moreover, and more importantly, if the writers of the Constitution had meant to make a switch in the Natural Born criteria when we switched from being Subjects to being Citizens, and that the switch was from merely the place of birth to having two (or for that matter even one) citizen parents, THEY WOULD HAVE TOLD US.

            It is amusing to think that you know that the portion of the Wong Kim Ark ruling about Natural Born status is “dicta,” when ten appeals courts indicated in their rulings that it is not dicta,and that the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of one of those rulings—leaving it standing. IF the Supreme Court had agreed with you that the appeals courts were all wrong and that EVERY child born in the USA is not a Natural Born Citizen, it would have taken the case.

            In any case, the law is what the ten appeals courts have decided. And more fundamentally, it is what the ELECTORAL COLLEGE decided twice. If you look closely at the Constitution, the final vote in the election, with the absolute right to NOT vote the way the people of their states had ruled, is given to the Electoral College. None of the electors changed the votes of the popular election in their states out of the belief that two citizen parents are required. Not one. In 2008 Obama won 356 electoral votes in the popular election, and 356 Electors voted for him. In 2012, Obama won 332 electoral votes in the popular election, and 332 electors voted for him.

            To be sure, some states bind their electors legally to vote the way that the state popular vote did (that actually is not Constitutional, but it presumably has some effect on the thinking of the electors), but not all of them. There are some states among the ones that Obama won in those elections that have not bound their electors. And not one of them changed her or his vote and announced that she or he was doing it because she or he believed that two citizen parents are required.

            The Wall Street Journal puts it this way:

            “Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.”—The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html?KEYWORDS=obama+%22natural+born+citizen%22+minor+happersett)

            (I have to admit that that is a somewhat nasty comment. But the part about the meaning of the terms all being the same is true. The part about some people not allowing themselves to believe that the courts and the Electoral College and the Congress and the legal scholars are right is also true. But such experts as these are right, and so far you are wrong:

            “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).

            “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.]

          • The Wong Kim Ark case holding is the one i stated. Everything else is dicta. I concede that it’s not always easy to tell the dicta from the holding, but here it’s easy because the issue before the court in WKA had nothing to do with Article II eligibility. I’ll repeat. I disagree with your interpretation, as well as the Wall Street Journal’s, Orrin Hatch’s and Ed Meese’s of what the Founders intended by the phrase “Natural Born Citizen.” I was aware of all of those statements prior to posting them. I have been studying this issue for many years, and we just disagree.

            The issue that I stated has never been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, and is therefore, an open Constitutional question, lower court decisions, the Wall Street Journal, Sen. Hatch and Ed Meese notwithstanding. Those “authorities” might, and in fact, do persuade many casual observers, but as I said, I have a much greater commitment to the Constitution than that.

            Ratio decidendi is a phrase that means the holding of the case. The comments you cite are dicta because they do not address the issue before the court, which was whether the plaintiff was a citizen of the United States. I don’t understand why the Founders used this phrase “Natural Born Citizen” on in Article II if it means nothing other than being a citizen. Why not just say the president has to be 35 and a citizen? That’s not what they said, and it’s the only place. Snarky editorial writers at the WSJ have a different opinion. I think I can survive that.

            Citing the Declaration of Independence’s assertion that “all men are created equal” to try to claim that we should ignore Article II of the Constitution is ridiculous. They two have ZERO to do with one another. No one is trying to deny the metaphysical inequality of one person v. another. We are talking about the eligibility of persons to hold the office of President under Article II. That’s the only issue on the table. Not “citizenship.” Not “equality.” The issue is “what is a “natural born citizen under ARticle II of the U.S. Constitution?” It hasn’t been decided by the Supreme Court. It’s an open question. It won’t be resolved while Barack Obama, the walking embodiment of what the Founders were trying to protect us from in Article II, is in office because as I said courts view it as a political question, which at this point it is. The only way he will be removed for his ineligibility is if sufficient people demand action from Congress, and it would have to be an overwhelming demand for impeachment by at least 75% of the population, which won’t happen.

            All the lawlessness we have seen, and continue to see, from this gangsta administration is the fruit of the poisonous tree of his ineligibility.

          • By the way, the word I had forgotten when I posted that reply is “Ratio decidendi” meaning part of the reasoning. Legal scholars and the ten appeals courts consider that the Natural Born portion of the Wong Kim Ark ruling is Ratio decidendi—part of the reasoning, and hence part of the ruling. The Minor v. Happersett comments on Natural Born are considered dicta. But, even if they had not been dicta, the simply DO NOT SAY that two citizen parents are required. “It was never doubted that two citizen parents and birth in the USA makes a NBC” is not the same thing as saying: “ONLY having two citizen parents and birth in the USA makes an NBC.”

            Re: “Obama’s case has never been resolved by the Supreme Court; that is, whether a child born of an American citizen and an alien is an Article II “natural born citizen.” That sort of question is exactly the sort of thing the Court exists to resolve, which brings me to your last point.”

            Answer. That is precisely what the ten appeals courts said that the Wong Kim Ark case DID decide.

            Moreover, if you consider yourself a conservative, let me point out a very fundamental principle of Conservative legal construction—strict construction. In strict construction, if a law or the Constitution does not specifically bar something, it is allowed. And a president with two foreign parents is not specifically barred, nor is there any historical evidence AT ALL that the writers of the Constitution wanted to bar them. If they and said so, of course that would be the law. Instead they said: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”

            And unless there is actual evidence to the contrary, and there isn’t any, that means that the US-born children of foreign parents are EQUAL to the US-born children of US parents. That is true under the common law as well, and so ONLY if the writers of the Constitution had told us that they were not using the common law and that they wanted two citizen parents (or even one) to affect Natural Born Citizen status is there any reason to believe that parents affect Natural Born Citizen status.

        • Re: “If he was in fact born in Hawaii, something still unclear…”

          Really? Did you know that birther sites have not even shown that Obama’s mother had a passport in 1961–and very few 18-year-olds did in 1961? (And although the information is available, they have not even shown the date on which Obama’s mother’s passport file was CREATED, and that is unlikely to have been scratched off of the file–and if it were, they would surely tell us—so why haven’t they told us the date on which Obama’s mothers’ passport file was created?

          Also, by an omission that is not likely to be an accident, birther sites have never told their readers that very very few women traveled outside of the country in the last two months of pregnancy in 1961 because of the high risk of stillbirths.

          So they want gullible people to assume that she had a passport and was one of the very very few women to travel out of the country in 1961 and that the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii who have repeatedly stated that Obama has a Hawaii birth certificate and that it shows that he was born in Hawaii are lying.

          How likely is that?

          (Oh, and all the stuff about the Kenyan grandmother allegedly saying that Obama was born in Kenya—that is simply made up. She never said any such thing. Birther sites simply cut off the tape recording just BEFORE she was asked: “Where was he born?” She answered that by saying repeatedly “In Hawaii”—but they never quoted her. I wonder why not?)

          So birther sites have lied, and they have not told you that there is not evidence that Obama’s mother had a passport, and they did not tell you how few women traveled in late pregnancy—and yet they want you to believe that the birth certificate is forged (quoting birther “experts,” of course) and that the officials in Hawaii, including the former Republican governor (a friend of Sarah Palin’s) are lying about it.

          Still “unclear?’

          • Re: “Citing the Declaration of Independence’s assertion that “all men are created equal” to try to claim that we should ignore Article II of the Constitution is ridiculous.”

            Not “ignore” it, use the Declaration as guidance. If it says “all men are created equal” and the Constitution does not say: “Except that the children of foreigners cannot be president” then assume that the Constitution does not mean “Except that the children of foreigners cannot be president.” It certainly does not say it, and neither did any of the men who had been at the Constitutional Convention in any of their writings.

            Sure, IF they had said: “We are using Vattel”—but they didn’t.

          • Yes, as unclear as the fact that he was at different times reported to be born in 2 different hospitals. His sister, born in Indonesia, also has one of those Hawaiian “Certificates of Live Birth,” BTW. I didn’t say he was born in Kenya. I said it’s still an open question. Just my opinion. Speaking of Hawaiian governors, remember when that goofball ex-hippie Neal Abercrombie said he was going to resolve everything by showing up with the birth certificate, then suddenly he couldn’t for some reason that he’s never explained? At least this usurper has inspired some unintentional comedy, and with him destroying the country, we could use more laughs.

  2. The Founding Fathers of the United States, used Vattel’s Laws of Nations as their guide and reference to meanings and definitions within our Constitution.

    The myth that the founding of American Republic was based on the philosophy of John Locke could only have been maintained, because the history of Leibniz’s influence was suppressed. The American Revolution was, in fact, a battle against the philosophy of Locke and the English utilitarians. Key to this struggle, was the work of the Eighteenth-century jurist, Emmerich de Vattel, whose widely read text, The Law of Nations, guided the framing of the United States as the world’s first constitutional republic. Vattel had challenged the most basic axioms of the Venetian party, which had taken over England before the time of the American Revolution, and it was from Vattel’s The Law of Nations, more than anywhere else, that America’s founders learned the Leibnizian natural law, which became the basis for the American System.

    Benjamin Franklin’s (a signer of our Constitution) letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775
    “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 send 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”?

    I am sure most reading this will know who Benjamin Franklin was. However one reference will not squell the unbelief that Vattel’s Laws of Nations, is not clear enough. So do a search on Laws of Nations and you will get HUNDREDS of responses. http://rs6.loc.gov/ammem/hlawquery.html This from the Library of Congress. Another excellent post is the following; The concept of judicial review, which Hamilton had championed in Rutgers v. Waddington, was included in the U.S. Constitution. In {The Federalist Papers,} No. 78, “The Judges as Guardians of the Constitution,” circulated as part of the debate over the new Constitution, Hamilton developed a conception of constitutional law which was coherent with Vattel’s conception. Hamilton stated that it is a “fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness.” However, the Constitution can only be changed by the nation as a whole, and not by the temporary passions of the majority or by the legislature. Both to protect the Constitution, but also to ensure just enforcement of the law, the independence of the judiciary from the legislature and the executive branch is essential. The judiciary must be the guardians of the Constitution, to ensure that all legislative decisions are coherent with it. This idea championed by Hamilton, that the courts ensured that the Executive and Legislative branches followed the Constitution, was later established as a principle of American jurisprudence by Chief Justice John Marshall

    Again proving the Constitution, it’s meaning, it’s wording , and it’s definitions were clearly a result of being referenced to Vattel’s Laws of Nations. So what does the Laws of Nations say about a “Natural Born Citizen”?

    Vattel in Bk 1 Sec 212, states the following.

    § 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. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. 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.

    As I have stated before and will state here again. Barack Obama, he has admitted being a British citizen at birth. From his own web-site, “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

    Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

    How can a British subject at birth, be free from any foreign influence as described by John Jay in the following;

    The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand’s Records, Volume 3]
    LXVIII. John Jay to George Washington.3
    [Note 3: 3 Documentary History of the Constitution, IV, 237.]
    New York 25 July 1787

    Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

    Again Alexander Hamilton (a signer of our Constitution) in the Gazette of the United States, published in Philadelphia, on June 29, 1793 “The second article of the Constitution of the United States, section first, establishes this general proposition, that “the EXECUTIVE POWER shall be vested in a President of the United States of America…The executive is charged with the execution of all laws, the law of nations, as well as the municipal law, by which the former are recognized and adopted.”

    “The Law of Nations” provides the Constitutional definition of a “natural born citizen, historical records reveal that Vattel’s work was quoted at the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787, various State Constitutional Conventions, and was also referenced in a 1785 letter by John Jay regarding a diplomatic matter.

    Should any court finally decide that there IS ample evidence that Barack Obama is not qualified to hold the Office of the President of the United States, they will have to rely on Vattel as the defining definition and argument, and stare reality in the face that not only is Barack Obama unqualified, but that he is not even a US Citizen.

    As a final note concerning the Supreme Court and Laws of Nations, I direct you to the following;

    The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot’s Debates, Volume 3]
    Saturday, June 21, 1788.

    Page 564

    There is to be one Supreme Court–for chancery, admiralty, common pleas, and exchequer, (which great eases are left in England to four great, courts,) to which are added criminal jurisdiction, and all cases depending on the law of nations–a most extensive jurisdiction. This court has more power than any court under heaven. One set of judges ought not to have this power–and judges, particular, who have temptation always before their eyes. The court thus organized are to execute laws made by thirteen nations, dissimilar in their customs, manners, laws, and interests. If we advert to the customs of these different sovereignties, we shall find them repugnant and dissimilar. Yet they are all forced to unite and concur in making these laws. They are to form them on one principle, and on one idea, whether the civil law, common law, or law of nations. The gentleman was driven, the other day, to the expedient of acknowledging the necessity of having thirteen different tax laws. This destroys the principle, that he who lays a tax should feel it and bear his proportion of it. This has not been answered: it will involve consequences so absurd, that, I presume, they will not attempt to make thirteen different codes. They will be obliged to make one code. How will they make one code, without being contradictory to some of the laws of the different states?

    Allow me to make one more reference;

    The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot’s Debates, Volume 4]
    Seamen’s Bill.–For the Regulation of Seamen on Board the Public Vessels, and in the Merchant Service of the United States.
    House of Representatives, February, 1813.

    Mr. SEYBERT. The Constitution of the United States declares, Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies, throughout the United States.” Sir, the rule only relates to the mode; it is only operative during the nascent state of the political conversion, and it ceases to have effect the moment after the process has been completed. Your Constitution only recognizes the highest grade of citizenship that can be conferred. The alien is thus made a native, as it were, and is fully vested with every eight and privilege attached to the native, with the exception impressed on the Constitution Your statutes cannot deprive any particular species of citizens of the right of personal liberty, or the locomotive faculty, because the Constitution does not characterize the citizens of the United states as native and naturalized. Our great family is composed of a class of men forming a single genus, who, to all intents and purposes, are equal, except in the instance specified–that of not being eligible to the presidency of the United States. The only exception to the rule is expressed in the Constitution. If other exceptions had been contemplated by the framers of that instrument, they would also have been expressed. None other having been expressed, he said, it followed that your legislative acts could not make individual exceptions touching the occupation of a citizen. All freemen, citizens of the United States, may pursue their happiness in any manner and in any situation they please, provided they do not violate the rights of others. You cannot deny to any portion of your citizens, who desire to plough the deep, the right to do so, whilst you permit another portion of them the enjoyment of that right.

    Mr. ARCHER. The framers of our Constitution did not intend to confine Congress to the technical meaning of the word naturalization, in the exercise of that power–the more especially when the comprehensive word rule was made use of. The principle upon which the power was to be exercised was left to the judicious exercise of Congress; all that was required was, that the rule should be uniform throughout the states. In the grant there is no other specification, as to the exercise of it, than that of its uniformity. The term naturalization was borrowed from England. It must be understood here in the sense and meaning which was, there attached to it. Whether it was absolute or qualified, it was still a naturalization. But the grant of a power in general terms necessarily implied the right to exercise that power in all its gradations. It Was in the political as it was in the natural world: the genus included the species. Besides, the power to naturalize was an attribute to sovereignty. It was either absolute or qualified; and if the grant to Congress only implied a power of unlimited naturalization, the power to qualify existed in the states or in the people, for what was not specifically granted was reserved.

    In treating of the executive power, the Constitution defines the qualifications of the President. It declares that he should be a natural-born citizen, or a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution. This article is unquestionably no limitation of the power of Congress upon the subject of naturalization. It was impossible to abridge a specific grant of power without a specific limitation, and the article alluded to could not be tortured, by the most ingenious mind, to diminish, even by implication, the authority of Congress upon a subject to which it was totally irrelevant.

    Thomas Jefferson

    In Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774-1789, Volume 21, Pages 250-251 ( http://tinyurl.com/8zvmgy ), we see notes from Thomas Jefferson from December 1783.

    The first question is

    “Qu. 1. Can an American citizen, adult, now inherit lands in England?”

    to which Thomas Jefferson begins his answer with

    “Natural subjects can inherit–Aliens cannot.
    There is no middle character–every man must be the one or the other of these.”

    (In other words, dual nationality did not exist. Citizenship was singular.)

    Thomas Jefferson also wrote this in his answer:

    “An alien is the subject or citizen of a foreign power.
    The treaty of peace acknowleges we are no longer to owe allegiance to the king of G.B. It acknowleges us no longer as Natural subjects then.
    It makes us citizens of independent states; it makes us aliens then.”

    (So, in the context of these notes, an “alien” is an American citizen and not a British subject.)

    The second question is

    “Qu.2. The father a British subject; the son in America, adult, and within the description of an American citizen, according to their laws. Can the son inherit?”

    and Thomas Jefferson answers, before dealing with an objection,
    “He owes allegiance to the states. He is an alien then and cannot inherit.”

    (For the adult “alien” citizen son, the state of the British father does not descend to him, neither with respect to nationality/allegiance nor with respect to property.)

    The third question is
    “Qu. 3. The father a British subject. The son as in Qu. 2. but an infant. Can he inherit?”

    Thomas Jefferson’s answer:

    “1st. by the Common law.
    We have seen before that the state of the father does not draw to it as an accessory that of the son where he is an adult. But by the common law.”

    (Thomas Jefferson wrote that there was “no middle character” between a “natural subject” and an “alien”. Further, he called the ADULT AMERICAN CITIZEN son of the British subject an ALIEN who could not inherit from the British father. So, it stands to reason that Thomas Jefferson is calling the MINOR son of the British subject a NATURAL SUBJECT by the common law in following the state of the father, even though the minor son is in America following the Treaty of Paris, called the “treaty of peace” in Thomas Jefferson’s answer to Question 1.)

    “An alien is the subject or citizen of a foreign power.
    The treaty of peace acknowleges we are no longer to owe allegiance to the king of G.B. It acknowleges us no longer as Natural subjects then.
    It makes us citizens of independent states; it makes us aliens then.”

    Here is the bomb-
    When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

    Therefore Obama is an alien of the United States and an Alien is not, can not, nor EVER be a “Natural Born Citizen”

    Other Quotes:

    I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen -Rep. John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment, before The US House of Representatives ((Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291, March 9, 1866 ) http://grou.ps/zapem/blogs/3787

    All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.
    -Circuit Justice Swayne, in United States vs Rhodes (1866)
    http://www.thecommentary.net/1861-circuit-justice-swayne-defines-na…

    The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
    -Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_Z…

    “In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said: ‘The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’ And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision.”
    -Justice Grey, in US v Wong Kim Ark (1898) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=1…

    “My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied.
    “That is mine, too,” said Leahy
    -Homeland Security SecretaryMichael Chertoff and Senator Patrick Leahy, (April 03, 2008) http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008c.html

    Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. -110th Congress, SR 511 http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-sr511/text

    • Re: “Yes, as unclear as the fact that he was at different times reported to be born in 2 different hospitals. “

      Answer: That is simply because the news agency UPI misquoted Obama’ sister once. That’s all. UPI misquoted her and fixed the mistake.

      Re: “His sister, born in Indonesia, also has one of those Hawaiian “Certificates of Live Birth,”

      Answer: That was an early birther myth. It is not true—at all. She does not even have a file in the Hawaiian DOH birth certificate files. The prominent birther Leo Donofrio did the equivalent of a FOI Search (I forget the name of the Hawaii law) in the DOH files for her—-and there is NO file.

      Re: “BTW. I didn’t say he was born in Kenya. I said it’s still an open question. Just my opinion.”

      Answer: It is a dumb opinion. Only 63 people went from the USA to Kenya in 1961 according to the INS, and every single one of them went by SHIP (what to see the INS records for fiscal 1961?) and only 21 people total came to the USA from Kenya in 1961 and all but one of them came by ship—-and there were not regularly scheduled ships from Hawaii to Kenya and back in 1961. In addition, the Kenyan government said that it investigated whether or not Obama was born there, and that he was not born there. (And the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii have repeatedly said that Obama was born there).

      Re: “ Speaking of Hawaiian governors, remember when that goofball ex-hippie Neal Abercrombie said he was going to resolve everything by showing up with the birth certificate, then suddenly he couldn’t for some reason that he’s never explained? “

      Answer: The explanation is remarkable simple. A birther site lied when it claimed that he said that he could not find it. He never said that he could not find it. (What he said was that he was looking for something IN ADDITION to the birth certificate—and that he could not find it.) At least three officials have stated that they saw Obama’s birth certificate in the files in Hawaii—two from the former Republican governor’s administration, one Democrat. And in addition there is the clerk who created the short form BC that was sent to Obama in 2007. And that is done by a clerk looking into the files, seeing the document in the files, copying off specific facts onto a computer form and then printing the short-form on security paper. And, duh, that can only be done if there is a birth certificate in the files and that it says on it that the place of birth was as Obama’s short-form says: HONOLULU.

      And, as I said, birthers have not even shown that Obama’s mother had a passport in 1961. And they have not told their supporters that very few 18-year-olds did have passports in 1961. Nor have they told their supporters that perhaps one in a thousand women traveled long distances in the last two months of pregnancy in 1961—due to the risk of stillbirths. And yet they want their supporters to ASSUME that Obama’s mother was one of the few who had a passport, and one of the very very few women who traveled overseas during pregnancy and that the birth certificate is forged and that the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii are lying about it.

      What is serious, not a joke, is that it is based on their lies—–such as the lie that said that Abercrombie could not find Obama’s birth certificate (he never said that) or that Obama’s lawyer admitted that his birth certificate was forged (she never said that either) or that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya (she said repeatedly that he was born in Hawaii). And, for that matter, they have posted FORGED videos claiming that Obama said that he was born in Kenya, and forged “Kenyan birth certificates.” And they have claimed that Obama became an Indonesian citizen—when an simple telephone call to the Indonesian Embassy in Washington shows that he never was.

      And yet birther sites are trying to convince people to believe their lies even without any evidence that Obama’s mother had a passport in 1961 and despite the extremely low percentage of women who traveled late in pregnancy and despite the fact that the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii (and the public Index Data files , and the birth notices sent to the papers by the DOH in 1961) would all have to be lying for Obama to have been born in any other place than in Hawaii.

      Re: “, and with him destroying the country, we could use more laughs.”

      Answer: The 65.9 million people who voted for Obama last November disagree with you. Too bad for you. You will just have to suffer until the next presidential election—and Conservatives have a good chance of losing that too.

    • Re: “The Founding Fathers of the United States, used Vattel’s Laws of Nations as their guide and reference to meanings and definitions within our Constitution.”

      Answer: If they had used Vattel, they would have told us, instead of not mentioning him at all in the Federalist Papers. And Vattel recommended several things that we did not adopt, such as every country having a state religion. Yes, Ben Franklin and others read Vattel. But they read a lot of other books too.

      Re: Benjamin Franklin’s (a signer of our Constitution) letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775
      “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. “

      Answer: Once again, yes they did read Vattel. But they read a lot of other books too.

      Re: “Hamilton developed a conception of constitutional law which was coherent with Vattel’s conception. “

      Answer: Perhaps you did not notice but Vattel does not mention elections AT ALL.

      Re:” The judiciary must be the guardians of the Constitution, to ensure that all legislative decisions are coherent with it. “

      Answer: That idea comes from the common law. Not from Vattel, who holds that the monarch of a country is totally supreme and cannot be challenged by anything. There is mention in Vattel of countries with supreme courts, but no mention of them overturning the actions of the sovereign.

      Re: “§ 212. Citizens and natives.”

      Answer: Yes, that is from Vattel. But there is no evidence that the writers of the Constitution used Vattel, and the AMERICAN legal experts at the time that the Constitution was written used the term Natural Born Citizen the way that it was used in the common law and not the way that it was used in Vattel.

      Re: “Barack Obama, he has admitted being a British citizen at birth. From his own web-site, “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”

      Answer: Yes, when Obama was born he was a dual citizen. But dual citizenship has no effect on Natural Born Citizen status. None whatever.

      Re: “Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

      Answer: A child born on US soil is not a foreigner, even if she or he is a dual citizen. You assume that Jay was worrying about dual citizenship or the citizenship of the parents. All that is certain is that a Natural Born Citizen excludes two groups of people—(1) the enormous group of people in the world who are not citizens at all; and (2) naturalized citizens.

      And John Jay’s quotation is actually really bad for the Vattel side because, duh, Jay could not have known that Washington had read Vattel (Washington took Vattel’s book out from a New York library—meaning that he read it AFTER Philadelphia). And, duh, if Jay did not know and could not know that Washington had read Vattel, and since Jay did know that Washington knew that Jay was a jurist. Jay could only have used Natural Born the way that it was used in the common law unless he had actually said “Natural Born as in Vattel” or “two citizen parents.” Without those phrases, John Jay could NOT have been referring to Vattel, because as I said, he did not know that Washington had read Vattel but he did know that Washington knew that Jay was a lawyer familiar with the common law.

      To assume that the writers of the Constitution were using Vattel, despite them never saying it (sure they read Vattel, but they read other things too) is still the same thing as saying that they thought that the US-born children of foreigners were not likely to be as loyal as the US-born children of US citizens. Tell that to justices Scalia and Alioto, and to chief justice Roberts (whose mother’s maiden name was Podrasky).

  3. Your byline is almost correct but for confusion of the conjunctions “but” for “and,” and the personal pronoun “we” for “you.” We are not racists. You are.

  4. Garnet, I miss the word “musket” in the 2nd amendment and I’ve read it several times. I never said that my statement that Obama isn’t an Article II natural born citizen is anything other than my opinion, which apparently you believe I’m not entitled to have. I do believe it otherwise I wouldn’t say it. I have an unshakeable devotion to the Constitution.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

The Teri O'Brien Show

book
%d bloggers like this: